File spoon-archives/marxism2.archive/marxism2_1996/96-04-08.195, message 56


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 ---


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005