Rod Hay wrote: > You must have be confused with some one else. I don't wish to argue a vulger > materialism. I want to maintain the distinction between natural and social, > which was characterised as vulgar. ___________ I'm not sure whether this distinction could be maintained. But I'll leave this point pass for now. _____ > Rod: > > Yes, the human will cannot be explained by natural forces. Yes, humans are > limited by socio-historical circumstances. But it not determined by them. ________ My point was not that "humans" are 'limited" by socio-historical circumstances. My point was that the human subject has no existence outside of the socio-historical circumstances s/he is implicated in. It is not a question of "limitation" at all. I wouldn't say that the subject is "determined" by the socio-historical circumstances, but rather it is "overdetermined". Carrol is right in pointing out that "product" was a poor choice of word on my part. ___________ Rod: > No one has succeed in explaining the human will by material or social factors. > > And no, it does not imply any spiritual or religious explanation. Let's just > say we don't know. Anything else could only be done as a statement of faith, > without sufficient evidence. Why is human will more mysterious than matter? __________ In my opinion, as Carrol has also suggested, the concept of "human will" is similar to the concept of God or Soul--its existence cannot be proved by any 'scientific' means. But that does not make it a nonsense. We all use the word "human will" in our language and communication with an understanding of what it means. But its meaning can only be understood in relation to action--a will that is unrelated to actions is no will. And action can be observed, and so it is material, if you will. Thus the very meaning of the human will is implicated in the construct of the subject and its actions that can all be analyzed within a materialist context. _________ Rod: > Both exist. Why must we reduce to two starting elements--matter and social > relations--instead of three--matter, social relations and the individual? _____________ But it is you who seem to think that the reductionist methodology is the only way to go. You think that I'm suggesting that there are two fundamental elements that exist independent of each other and are the basic building blocks of all understanding, whereas you are suggesting a third fundamental and independent element, "individual", should be added to it. But this is not my point at all. As it is clear from your second fundamental element, "social relations", that it simply cannot be an element because it is a relation. My point is not to reduce things to its fundamental elements, but rather to suggest that no fundamental element exists independently of the relations in which it is found to be implicated. So my approach is holistic as opposed to yours which is atomistic. __________ Rod: > In your array of relations, are all relations of equal significance? __________ This is a significant question. I'm not one of those who think that everything determines everything else is a profound statement--it simply is a tautology. In the game of the construction of knowledge we define our object of knowledge. Every object of knowledge has its own relations of significance and insignificance. However, no object of knowledge can be cut neatly out of the whole as a water tight compartment, and thus the inside of an object of knowledge must recognize a two way communication with the outside. ________ Rod: > Without causation there is no explanation, only description. And what is the > purpose of that other than to pass the time? __________ There is explanation of course, but not of the causal type. I think causal explanation is basically of mechanical nature, where one seeks knowledge of the cause for control purposes. My kind of thinking is not control oriented and so is not conducive to power, whether left or right. But I think it has a politics of its own, and that is opposition to power per se. Cheers, ajit sinha > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: Ajit Sinha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I'm glad you brought this up, Rod. By introducing human "will", which cannot > be > explained by natural forces, as the original cause in the explanation of > human > society, you have simply and neatly thrown your 'materialist thesis' out of > the > window. A materialist thesis would rather not grant such autonomy to the > mysterious human "will". Who does the willing, by the way? A subject, only a > subject can will. But what is a subject? A subject is a product of a > socio-historical context--his/her subjectivity that directs his/her willing > is > not at all autonomous (remember? "man is ensemble of social relations"). It > can > only be understood in the socio-historical (i.e., various other relations of > production, culture and politics, etc.) context. Thus we are back to the > relational and horizontal epistemology rather than the causal and vertical > epistemology where things are arranged one on top of the other with the > bottom > one being always mysterious and unexplainable. I think an epistemology based > on > causation must in the end take shelter in some kind of spiritualism. Cheers, > ajit sinha > > Rod Hay > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > The History of Economic Thought Archives > http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html > Batoche Books > http://members.tripod.com/rodhay/batochebooks.html > http://www.abebooks.com/home/BATOCHEBOOKS/ > > ______________________________________________________ > Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
