File spoon-archives/marxism.archive/marxism_1995/95-01-31.000, message 53


Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 12:53:51 -0500 (EST)
From: Richard Wolff <rwolff-AT-minerva.cis.yale.edu>
Subject: Re: Market/planned (fwd)


FYI

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 12:41:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Richard Wolff <rwolff-AT-minerva.cis.yale.edu>
To: kevin quinn <kquinn-AT-bgnet.bgsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Market/planned



	Rejecting foundationalism (absolutism) does mean to embrace SOME 
meaning of the term relativism (but not ANY meaning). That is, I do NOT
think of relativism as some assertion of the equality or equivalency pf 
alternative theories (of efficiency or anything else). The idea that the 
rejection of foundationalism necessarily entails that kind of relativism 
that thinks of alternatives as equal and hence deduces that embracing any 
of the alternatives as pointless, unwarranted, etc. - that idea is one 
promoted by those who seek to make relativism so awful that everyone will 
stay with foundationalism/absolutism as the lesser evil.
	The relativism of which I speak is rather the view that 
perspectives always have and always will differ AND that we attach 
ourselves to one or another perspective (or mixtures) with passion 
because of the unique overdeterminations of us as individuals with 
particular needs, hopes, commitments, and felings that make one 
perspective rather than others dear to us.

R. Wolff

     ------------------

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005