One point of agreement is that Lenin’s definition of matter grounds empirical investigation, and Frank nowhere objects to that. Frank rejects neither theory nor realism, but does reject the claim that philosophy must legislate in advance what counts as matter for science to be objective. As he puts it, “scientific theories are not mere summaries of observations but conceptual systems which go far beyond what is immediately given” (Frank, Modern Science and Its Philosophy , 1949, p. 6). His so-called “instrumental” stance is therefore anti-pragmatist in the vulgar sense. (In that respect, Frank's position was similar to that of his good friend Albert Einstein). Theories are indispensable and genuinely about the world, yet are always historically conditioned and revisable through practice. When Frank avoids grounding science in philosophical categories, he is not refusing to distill knowledge into theory, but is insisting, against both Kantian apriorism and metaphysical materialism, that theory earns its objectivity through collective experimental and social validation rather than ontological fiat. In this respect, his position is closer to Marx’s method in Capital than to any positivist suspicion of theory as such.
My own suspicion is that if Lenin had lived longer and got to see Frank's more mature work, he might have realized that they shared a lot of common ground. But we will never know. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#39810): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/39810 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/116902646/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
