Waistline,

I think what I said was reasonably clear, if a little brief.

As to this 'gem':

"...materialism must change its form with every epoch making discovery."

If I were convinced Engels knew what materialism was, I would still not
agree with him.

Since I do not accept philosophical materialism (i.e., the sort that makes
Engels regard matter as an "abstraction", and that saddles it with Hermetic
rubbish), I do not accept that materialism has to change with every passing
scientific fad. Nor even with 'epoch making' discoveries.

Under what circumstances materialism should change I will leave annoyingly
obscure.

I am not working on Historical Materialism at present, just concentrating on
trying to kill-off the influence of Hegel (not that I stand much chance of
doing that, the poison has seeped in far too deeply).

RL





----- Original Message -----
From: <Waistline2@aol....>
To: <marxism-thaxis@list...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 01, 2006 6:39 PM
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science



"What do you find naïve in Engel's views?"

Everything he wrote about science, mathematics and philosophy, although the
word "naive" was a little too mild.

I should have said "rubbish".

His other stuff I admire greatly.

RL


Comment

Was Engels writings concerning science, mathematics and philosophy, naive
when they were written and in relationship to the literature of the 1850s,
1860s, 1870-1890s?  For me his greatest philosophic gem was his statement
"that
materialism must change its form with every epoch making discovery."

Waistline

_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@list...
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis



_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@list...
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis