Date: Wed, 3 Apr 1996 23:28:01 +0300 (EET DST) From: J Laari <jlaari-AT-cc.jyu.fi> Subject: Re: Rahul's thread OK Rahul, think I got your point. "This is exactly the kind of crap I was talking about, Jukka. First of all, you assume that because I'm a scientist I'm ignorant about 'questions of history, explanation, and meaning.' This would be highly insulting if you didn't have so little basis for an opinion." Only basis was your postings. I can't read your mind. Your insulted (in my opinion) Leo. Besides, you didn't want to learn when he tried to tell some points of importance in contemporary political and social theory. I'm sorry that I interfered your discussion. That was my mistake. It's just frustrating to notice how same trashing has been going on again and again for nearly two years. There's a world outside of cyberia and it's changing, my friend. But paradoxically it's cybermarxists who doesn't seem to notice it. "Second, without (I imagine) any knowledge of physics, you are ready to tell me what it can and cannot say about wider questions." Let's say: no knowledge at all - because I don't know what concept of knowledge you use. Exactly like you would and you should if I start to tell that in a matter of fact earth is pancake after all or newtonian physics makes no sense at all today under any circumstances.. "I personally find physics a much better background to enable one to logically dissect these au courant academic shibboleths than, say, comp lit or philosophy or cultural studies, etc." I've noticed that. Therefore you trashed your literary teacher. You already knew how things are and that she was talking crap (I refer your seminary example). And me, I've noticed I do get angry when whether philosophers or scientists or political activists begin to trash, say, social theoretical discussions without grasping background and essential traits in that theorization. There are deep problems in social theory for sure. But that existing discussion and its background is the starting point for new discussions. We simply cannot throw all former research and thinking away and begin everything straight from the start. There's no clean table. Everyone's supposed to do his homework in order to know what's at stake in that theory. In my opinion, that is. There is no sensible way to simply go back to Marx as if generations of very serious people haven't done their best to improve his legacy. On the other hand, there's no way to ignore him. Marx is for social theory (and economic, historical, cultural, and political theories) almost what Plato and Aristotle are for philosophy. Something very fundamental - but not god. When I referred to Max Weber and Verstehen vs Erkl{ren dilemma I was referring to something ever present question in social theory in general. It is highly important for marxists and all leftists too, not only for some academic disciplines. Today one form of it is found in those radical democratic theories Leo has tried to clarify. The whole point gets lost if we trash his point of view in the middle of sentence, so to speak. And that, I believe, is a loss for all of us. I think we should take a deep breadth and calm down. At least I try it. That wasn't particularly good start for Promised List and I'm partly guilty of that. Yours, Jukka L --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005