Bad grammar aside, I thought my point was non-mysterious. If, after I've given a detailed argument as to why some philosophy is false and harmful, someone retorts that philosopher X actually had politically progressive views, why should I then be more favorably disposed towards said bullshit?
Your question is the reverse: what individuals (thinkers, presumably) do I find fruitful though not politically progressive? I would imagine there must be thousands, but why is this even a question? The more important question in either of these scenarios is: is there an intrinsic connection between a body of thought and a politics, and what is its nature? The case of Heidegger is a particularly apt example, though there are countless others. At 01:36 AM 4/3/2008, Phil Walden wrote: >Ralph you say that you are "not terribly impressed to show a favorable >attitude towards philosophies just because some of their proponents were >political progressive individuals. This shows a rather provincial >approach to intellectual problems and their broader ideological >implications." I am intrigued by this because although I look to a range of >philosophical resources - Hegel, Marx, Adorno, Jameson, etc - they do tend >for me to be politically progressive figures. > >I wonder if you can give any examples of how you find non-politically >progressive individuals to be fruitful? > >Phil Walden > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ralph >Dumain >Sent: 03 April 2008 05:08 >To: marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu >Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Vienna Circle etc. > >I wonder if this is unequivocally true about the Frankfurters. For >sure, Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse had an animus against >positivism, but it is not necessarily the case that they viewed the >neopositivists themselves as reactionaries. The closest approach to >specific animosity I can think of is some correspondence in the '30s >I read about where Horkheimer refused to participate in dialogue with >Neurath, but I don't trust my memory. > >I would like to point out for the general purpose of such >discussions, I am not terribly impressed to show a favorable attitude >towards philosophies just because some of their proponents were >political progressive individuals. This shows a rather provincial >approach to intellectual problems and their broader ideological >implications. > >At 08:09 PM 4/2/2008, Jim Farmelant wrote: > > > >On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 09:53:37 +0100 "rasherrs" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >writes: > > > Thank you for the help in relation to the Vienna Circle. It is a > > > circle > > > that has been much misunderstood in radical left circles. When I was > > > in my > > > late teens I was led to the view that it was a crassly reactionary > > > group. > > > >The Frankfurters in particular pushed that view of the > >Circle, as did many Soviet or pro-Soviet writers, > >who emphasized Leninist opposition to Machism. _______________________________________________ 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
