Date: Tue, 11 Jun 1996 00:04:45 +0300 (EET DST)
From: J Laari <jlaari-AT-cc.jyu.fi>
Subject: Re: ..cat


OK Rahul

I'm not sure whether I got your point, but I think I
understood your aim on epistemology. I simply was after
this: if 'epistemology' means searching or studying the
conditions and nature of everything called knowledge, then
what is the point to restrict epistemology to some special
scientific or disciplinary knowledge and therefore to
introduce several epistemologies? In a sense, you answered
my question.

> No. Actually, it's the other way around. Human social reality is far more
> changeable than natural reality. Furthermore, the changes that we know of
> in nature can often be described in simple mathematical terms (i.e., the
> expansion of the universe), necessitating no new philosophical conceptions.

Yes. That's one of the basic points of KM. I had something
else in my mind: for example that labour is necessary in
order to communities/socities to exist, or that there always
is organization to some degree. We can't know of future, but
for me it's quite hard to imagine future human societies
without need for reproduction and some organizing
principles. Their forms course do change in time. But
there's no need to replace that kind of 'philosophical'
premises by supposition of the end of history or of social.
(Poor examples, but I'm tired.)

> Newton's laws of motion will actually stand much longer
> than Marx's analysis of class society.

You mean physical reality those laws describe? Let's hope
so. But if KM was right with his analysis then I don't see
why his analysis couldn't stand as well as that of Newton's
despite the fact that capitalism (class society) will
someday be 'just history'.

> postmodern scholars. They start with the premise "All thought is
> linguistic," which itself is a lie, and go on to say that everything is
> stuctured like a language -- as Lacan's famous but meaningless dictum.

Actually, if I remember it properly, he said that
'unconscious', not everything, is structured like language.
This isn't wholly meaningless. But it seems to be too hasty
conclusion (I've read some nice critiques of Lacan's
linguisteries but can't remember the writers).

Jukka



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---