From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Mon Mar 21 2005 - 14:03:20 EST
> >__________ >Ajit: > It is no good to oppose ajit sinha >without any understanding of the issues involved, as >Rakesh does. What are the issues involved? It is to make sense of value talk as a practical discourse. If we simply positivistically dismiss as metaphysical the value concept--as will, intentionality, etc. are dismissed in behavioristic psychology --then we cannot understand what makes it a necessary illusion. There is a reason why Marx analogized his theory of fetishism to his critique of religion. When we say that people are paying more than value for a kind of thing, i.e. the value of the money paid is greater than the value of that thing, what is the practical meaning of that statement about the non equivalence of two things in terms of a what is fantastically supposed to be a shared property inherent in the respective things? What do we practically mean when we say that commodities in the aggregate are selling below their value? Can you explain to me Marx's analysis of talk about value as a practical discourse? This is something that should interest someone expert in Wittgenstein! By the way, I still think your posts are shifting and manifestly contradictory. Yours, Rakesh > Cheers, ajit sinha >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Mar 22 2005 - 00:00:02 EST