RE: [OPE] Reply to the thinker

Jurriaan:
 
 
I was simply following Dave Z's suggestion and stripping your posts of
unnecessary rhetoric and (I'm sorry if you don't like this word)
miss-representations. I would have preferred that you try to hone
your argument yourself, but since I tried to get you to do that on
numerous occasions without success, I did the editing myself.
 
 
You may have tried to do what you claim in the first paragraph below,
but you have not succeeded, imo. Before you can critique a school of
thought, first you have to *accurately* know what *everyone* in that
school has *in common*. Your summary of alleged VFT perspectives show
that you haven't completely grasped that. In a way that's understandable
because VFT has more theoretical heterogeneity than many other schools.
There is a simple and practical way of dealing with that, though: you
could critique Reuten-Williams, _or_ Roth/Eldred (1978), _or_ Arthur,
or T. Smith, etc.
 
In solidarity, Jerry
 
PS: I'm not "committed to VFT".

> I base my interpretation of VFT very exactly
> on what scholars committed to VFT (including Jerry) themselves argued,
> to the point of quoting each point near-literally from different
> authors, though I admit that different value-form theorists alse disagree with
> each other on specific points. You can also consult the OPE-L archives, to see
> for yourself what is being argued.
>
> Besides, you people insult me with your
> accusation of ranting, whereas my interpretation is arrived at from
> very lengthy personal experience, reading the literature and working
> personally with some of the scholars who seriously uphold these ideas,
> across thirty years. Obviously, Jerry's transference of "ranting"
> is his clever bluffing way of not taking the argument seriously, and not
> providing any counterevidence._______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Sat Mar 14 06:58:51 2009