From: Howard Engelskirchen (howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM)
Date: Sun Jan 01 2006 - 21:40:11 EST
Hi Jerry, You write, >To substitute > a few words, would you object to: "the social predominance of > marginalism over heterodox theories of economics depends upon > a precise set of social conditions of existence ...."? No, but the sentence says nothing about the truth of either marginalism or heterodox theories. I don't think there's any reason for Marxists to be squeamish about making claims (fallible, approximate, revisable) about the way the world is. Howard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jerry Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Sunday, January 01, 2006 11:17 AM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Absolutes in Marxian Theory? > > Lack of attention to realism's concerns gives rise to e.g., > > "It follows that the social predominance of one theory over others depends > > upon a precise set of social conditions of existence, that is, a precise > > set of the divers processes comprising the social totality . . . Thus, for > > Marxian theory, the conditions of existence for the theory's social > > predominance over others include, for example, the class processes within > > that society, the technical process of transforming nature, legal > > processes of conflict adjudication, and so on." > > Hi Howard, > > The claim that R&W are making above does concern an issue of > realism: i.e. that the dominance of one theory over others "depends > upon a precise set of social conditions of existence". This seems to > me to be consistent with materialist claims, e.g. that the ruling ideas > of a given society tend to be the ideas of the ruling class. To substitute > a few words, would you object to: "the social predominance of > marginalism over heterodox theories of economics depends upon > a precise set of social conditions of existence ...."? Read in this way, > one sees that the quote concerns the coming into being of the > historical conditions which give rise to the ascendancy and dominance > of a particular social perspective. Note that this is not an ontological > relativist claim: the world depends not merely on theories and is > relative to them; rather, the theories themselves depend on a whole > "set of diverse processes comprising the social totality." > > In solidarity, Jerry > > > > > In sum, we need the explanation of the ways in which our epistemologies > > are relative. Good. A necessary underlaboring. But without equally > > thoroughgoing attention to realism's concerns, ontological relativism will > > overrun the premises by default: the way the world is depends on our > > theories and is relative to them. >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 03 2006 - 00:00:01 EST