From: "Phil Walden" <phillwalden-AT-email.msn.com>
Subject: BHA: on Great Individuals
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2000 15:29:31 +0100


Hi Mervyn,

You wrote:
>The properly materialist position, it seems to me, is that when it >becomes
historically possible for a theory to be thought, it is (by and >large)
thought and does not depend on Great Men (sorry, >Individuals) for its
existence, i.e. 'genius' itself, considered socially, >is not accidental -
the most they can do is speed things up >somewhat and add some rigour.....

I of course agree with you that history must have provided the potential for
a theory to be thought in order for it to be thought.  But will it be
thought, and theorised, and acted upon, or not?  Here is where I agree with
Hegel, Plekhanov, Lenin and Roy implicitly (when he is applying the category
to the past), and others, when they refer to World-Historical Individuals.
I do really believe that history is radically changed by such individuals.
It seems to me that your position is not fully materialist because, though
it takes objective social history into account, it fails to take account of
the contribution made by concrete individuals and their thought-battles.
And I would like to ask you a question, Mervyn.  Do you think it is possible
for history to go backwards if there is a build-up of categorial,
epistemological, and theoretical error generally?  Or is that impossible?

Warm regards,
Phil




     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---