From: HDespain-AT-aol.com
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 22:59:19 EST
Subject: Re: BHA: redundancy of science quotation


Andrew from chapter 48 section 3 of volume III of Capital, Marx writes:

"Vulgar economy actually deos no more than interpret, systematise and defend 
in doctrinaire fashion the conceptions of the agents of bourgeois produciton 
who are entrapped in bourgeois production relations.  It should not astonish 
us, then, that vulgar economy feels particularly at home in the estranged 
outward appearances of economic relations in which these *prima facie* absurd 
and perfect contradictions appear and that these relations seem the more 
self-evident the more their internal relationships are concealed from it, 
although they are understandable to the popular mind.  But all science would 
be superfluous if the outward appearance and the essence of things directly 
coincided".

And from Value, Price and Profit, the last sentence of part VI, Marx writes:

"Scientific truth is always paradox, if judged by everyday experience, which 
catches only the delusive appearance of things".

Also of interest are Marx comments in the Introduction to Grundrisse.  The 
root of Marx's thought on these epistemological/ontological matters are to be 
found in his critique of Hegel.  Specifically "Critique of Hegel's Doctrine 
of the State".  The relevance of these observations remain, and are exploited 
by Bhaskar in constucting his stratified ontology.


Hans Despain
In a message dated 01-11-05 22:09:42 EST, you write:

<< Andrew Collier (1994, p. 7) says that Marx felt that
 science was necessary because of the difference
 between appearance and reality.  Is this based on a
 specific quotation?  A reference, anyone?
 
 Thanks
 Andrew >>


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