Date: Wed, 19 Apr 1995 13:56:07 EST From: Pete Bratsis <aki-AT-cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu> Subject: Re: Marxism as science -Reply I don't find Althusser's notion of science compelling either. I was just trying to bring the discussion from one of 'science' to a more specific notion of what we mean by sciecne. And that, of course, AM is not necessarily more scientific of any other Marxism. I am also generalising from the AM people that I have read, Elster, E.O. Wright, and Przowarski, in general - rational choice/methodological individualism types. Perhaps we should narrow the discussion to a question of objectivity. Does Marxism (or, a partcular form of it) produce objective knowdedge? Does scientificity mean objectivity? On this issue I think there would be agreement between Althusser and, say, the Elster of - Explaining Technical Change -. While for racidacly different diffent reasons. (By the way, I think Althusser notion of rdicalgur refers to keeping the concepts of a problematic pure, free or contamination from other problematic and being consistent and explicit in their use). I would argue that it does not produce objective knowledge since this is an impossibility. For Althusser because it would mean a discourse that is subjectless. A discourse is scientific when it is a subjectless discourse. A discourse that is impossible. For Elster because it would mean a complete knowledge of cause. I position which he has recently moved away from (cf. Nuts and Bolts) in favor of causeal mechanisms. He recognizes the role indeterminancy place in causal explanation and the impossibility of positivly stating cause. (the reference to Gunnell was on the relationship of empericism to political theory, not politcs.) Peter Bratsis --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005