Date: Fri, 12 Jul 1996 00:26:09 -0400 (EDT)
From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: social, Smith



Tony would, I believe, reject any sharp distinction between epistemology
and "ontology" or metaphysics. That's part of his branch of Hegelianism.
He'd describe his project as social theory. Tony, are you lurking out
there? Have I got you right? --Justin

On Sat, 22 Jun 1996, J Laari wrote:

> Hans,
> 
> thanks for your response. You surely are right about Smith's
> main concern, especially in "The Logic of Marx's Capital". I
> agree - in this sense my 'critique' of Smith wasn't on
> right track. I just used Smith as one common and recent
> reference point to clarify my point.
> 
> I also had his other books in mind, "The Role of Ethics in
> Social Theory: Essays from Habermasian Perspective" (1991)
> and "Dialectical Social Theory and Its Critics" (1993). I
> guess you know them.
> 
> Taken all these three together, especially the broad view he
> offers in "Role of Ethics", I would ask whether you think
> it's approriate to consider whole Smithian enterprise as
> 'epistemological' (rather than 'ontological')? In this case
> it's a bit odd, in my opinion, to call his program 'social
> theoretical'. I'm not happy with but can't find out any
> better expression..
> 
> Jukka
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





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