On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 02:22:29 -0000 "rosa lichtenstein"
<rosa.lichtenstein3@ntlw...> writes:
> Jim,
>


> I share with Cohen only an antipathy toward Hegel; his attempt to do
>
> analytic Marxism I reject because it wasn't analytic enough (by a
> long way),
> and scarcely Marxist. However, I greatly admired his attempt to
> bring
> clarity to historical materialism. It's a pity his detractors failed
> to copy
> his here, and quickly returned to the Hegelian mire.

Rosa,

It should be noted that we do have on this list  andie nachgeborenen
(AKA Justin Schwartz) who was in a former life a practicing professional
philosopher at Ohio State and was then a proponent of
Analytical Marxism, although his brand, I think, was closer to
the views of Kai Nielsen and Rodney Peffer, rather than to
those of Cohen and his No-Bullshit group. Also, Schwartz doesn't,
I believe, share the anti-Hegelianism of Cohen, or yourself.
I know that Justin, in the past, has said that he subscribes
to a kind of analytical Hegelianism, expressing some affinity
with people like Tony Smith, Ken Westphal, Terry Pinkard, Michael
Hardimon, Robert Pippin, and Alan Wood amongst others.

BTW, changing the subject just a bit. Having noticed that on
your website, you devoted a significant amount of discussion
to critquing Jim Lawler, you might be interested to know that
he is a subscriber to this list, although I think it's been some
ages since he last posted anything here.

>
> I was aware of Neurath, but my take on this is not the same as his
> (as you
> will soon see if you look at my summary of Essay Twelve -- the full
> Essay
> will appear much later). I do not accept Neurath's criterion of
> meaning,
> since I am not a positivist, logical or otherwise. But that is not
> the only
> difference.
>
> And I was also aware that I am not the first anti-Hegelian Marxist
> (!!); my
> criticisms of Hegel bear no relation to dela Volpe (or Colletti,
> or....).
>
> Some of my most original material you will find here:
>
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2003_01.htm
>
> and here:
>
> http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2005.htm
>
> Even though my ideas are dependent on Frege and Wittgenstein, I
> apply them
> to these areas of DM in a totally new way.
>
> Where else will you find a neo-Fregean/Wittgensteinian dissolution
> of (but
> not solution to)  Zeno's paradox, for example? Or someone who shows
> exactly
> how Hegel's confusion of the 'is' of predication with the 'is' of
> identity
> is the heart of this dialectical beast?
>
> To be sure this is Bertrand Russell's point, but here I share about
> 1% with
> him.
>
> In Essays Three and Twelve I reveal how this confusion arose in
> ancient
> Greece and why leisure-dominated Greek thinkers imagined the world
> could be
> understood by an appeal to abstractions (and thus how super-truths
> could be
> derived from language alone), and how they created these
> abstractions by a
> syntactically inept interpretation of a superficial feature of
> Indo-European
> grammar, and how this destroys the capacity language has for
> expressing
> generality, thus undermining DM itself. DM thus becomes its own
> grave-digger; a nice dialectical inversion, this.
>
> [Re Indo-European grammar, Nietzsche had a somewhat similar idea,
> but I push
> it much further, and back it up with a totally new analysis.]
>
> Of course, I could be 100% wrong in all I say, but I defy you to
> find where
> else this stuff can be found.
>
> However I am holding back the vast bulk of the original material for
> my PhD
> thesis (for obvious reasons).
>
> RL
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jim Farmelant" <farmelantj@juno...>
> To: <marxism-thaxis@list...>
> Sent: Thursday, March 02, 2006 1:42 AM
> Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] People's History of Science
>
>
> >
> >
> > On Wed, 1 Mar 2006 13:27:34 -0000 "Rosa Lichtenstein"
> > <rosa.lichtenstein3@ntlw...> writes:
> >> Charles, thanks for those comments.
> >>
> >> I absolutely agree, much anti-dialectic stuff is hackneyed to
> high
> >> heaven.
> >>
> >> As to my claim that my ideas are largely original to me, you will
> >> have to
> >> check for yourself. What can I say...?
> >>
> >> "You know. Like that Lenin is using a metaphysical concept when
> he
> >> analyzes
> >> "John is a man."   That's not exactly a new criticism."
> >>
> >> Ah, but if you check the line I take, you will see I do develop
> it
> >> in new
> >> ways (along neo-Fregean lines -- if you know of anyone else who
> has
> >> done
> >> this, I will be gob-smacked!). And where have you come across
> this
> >> before
> >> (posted at Revolutionary Left a few weeks ago)?
> >
> > I think some other people have attempted similar things in
> > the past. You, yourself alluded to Gerald Cohen with his
> > *Karl Marx's Theory of History: A Defence*.
> > Concerning your treatment of the Dialectician's Dilemma, didn't
> > Sidney Hook advance a similar line of argument in his book,
> > *Reason, Social Myths and Democracy*?  And Hook was
> > insistent that diamat, while being formally atheist, would
> > up smuggling Hegel's God into its concept of matter.
> > And Otto Neurath, one of the founders of the Vienna Circle,
> likewise
> > made the equation of metaphysics with ideology long ago.
> > Neurath believed that it was possible to ground Marxism without
> > appealing to any sort of qausi-Hegelian metaphysics, which
> > he rejected as being literally nonsensical and meaningless.
> >
> > In Italy, the Communist philosopher, Galvano della Volpe
> > in writings like his *Logic as a Positive Science* took a
> > strongly anti-Hegelian stance, rejecting the Hegelianized
> > Marxism that had been handed down in Italy by Gramsci,
> > who had been profoundly influenced by Croce and Gentile.
> > Della Volpe in his writings talked of dialectics but his
> > treatment of the subject drew upon such thinkers as
> > John Dewey, David Hume, and even Rudolf Carnap
> >
> >>
> >> "Comrades might like to think about this (taken from my site):
> >>
> >> The quandary facing dialecticians we might call the
> "Dialecticians'
> >> Dilemma"
> >> [DD]. The DD arises from the uncontroversial observation that if
> >> reality is
> >> fundamentally contradictory then any true theory should reflect
> this
> >>
> >> supposed state of affairs. However, and this is the problem, in
> >> order to do
> >> this such a theory must contain contradictions itself or it would
> >> not be an
> >> accurate reflection of nature. But, if the development of science
> is
> >>
> >> predicated either on the removal of contradictions from theories,
> or
> >> on the
> >> replacement of older theories with less contradictory ones, as
> >> DM-theorists
> >> contend, then science could not advance toward a 'truer' account
> of
> >> the
> >> world. This is because scientific theories would then reflect
> >> reality less
> >> accurately, having had all (or most) of their contradictions
> >> removed.
> >>
> >> [DM = Dialectical Materialism.]
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>


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