> andie nachgeborenen > > > Settled? > > ^^^ > CB: From the standpoint of Marxism, settled, or > obsolete. Marxism holds that > there is progress in human knowledge.
I dond't disagree. It seem to me, though, that philosophy is defined by the big questions (not eternal, relative to an era) on which there is no agreement. Progress in philosophy consists in mapping out the alternatives so you know what the field looks like. > I think Rorty is right, issues don't get > settled, people just get tired of talking about them > and move on to others. What the debate does is map > the > field of possible positions, not settle anything > except in the minds of advocates. > > ^^^^^ > CB: The Engels-Lenin approach on this is that truth > derives from correction > of errors, trial and error. As you know, I have written on this, specifically in regard to Marx. The question here is whether there is the sort of objective reality about these questions where error would harm you in a way that would lead you to correct your views. I think in some cases there may be, I have argued elsewhere that this is the case with different class views of justice, where ruling class interest in domination will lead to unstable societies but subordinate group interest in emancipation will not. However is there a comprable pressure taht would lead to the adoption of true views about, say personal identity over time, even if there is a truth of the matter? Or about whether language is compositional, ir indeed whether materialism is true as opposed to, say, Kantian transcendral idealism? For example, materialism wins over idealism, > from the standpoint of > Marxist advocates. Begs the question. Marxists believe this -- some of them -- but there is in fact disagreement that doesn't seem go goi away, and no overwhelmingly decisive argument. > There arise new questions, but many old questions > are answered. > Yes, there arise new questyions. So philosophy will be different,a s modern philosophy is different from ancient of medieval or early modern philosophy. But your claim was that all there would to philosophy was history, that it would be over. Rorty seems to think this too, but I don't see any reason to think that it will be oveeras opposed to different. > ^^^^^ > CB: Well, he does say there remains formal logic and > dialectics. Dialectics > deals with the parts and the whole, the > interconnectedness of everything, > and presumably therefore, presumably, the whole of > knowledge and the > interconnectedness of the separate sciences. It's conceivable that philosophy wil get renamed "dialectics," a term that doesn't have a lot of concrete content, but that is sort of a hollow victory for the "end of philosophy" thesis, if it just goes on under a new name. > > What counts as a system? Philosophers sre still > producing large, comprehensove, and fairly > integrated > bodies of work that cover a lot of territory. > > ^^^ > > CB: Are they producing something that they consider > metaphysics, or did the > anti-metaphysicians win the day on that ? Are they > really producing ideas > that are new, or old ideas in new forms ? Well, they are teaching classes called "metaphysics" in philosophy grad schools, and people are certainly producing what they consider to be metaphysics. Whether it's anything new you'd have to decide for yourself by reading a lot of it. > You don't know that if Marxism were > geberally accepted most people would not feel it > necessary or important to ask philosophical > questions. > > ^^^^^ > > CB: Right. You don't either. That would be > speculation to speak on that > since that condition does not obtain in empirical > reality. I'm just > commenting on what obtains empirically. But I didn't > say that nobody would > raise philosophical questions in communism, just as > they might study ancient > religions in history in communism. But that's speculation. You assume that some science or other will resolve all the question people have discussed under the rubric of philosophy and settle those questions, which is a pretty bold claim, and very plausible. Will science tell us what to do? Indeed, even to say that science will tell us what there is raises a philosophical question -- whether scientific realism is true and complete. (I think it is true but not complete. There are, for example, tables and chairs, but no science of tables and chairs.) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
