Yeah, Carroll, I have read, and indeed studied, a lot of Stalin as well as Lenin. Not
only was I a Sovietologist, I was in and out of some outfits where Stalin was "in." I
can still give you chapter and verse on various outre Stalinist views, such as his
linguistic theories.
Anyway, you willfully misunderstand me. I do not say that I think we or I should
aspire to a Leibnizean grasp of the entire range of human learning. (I mean, I do, but
I recignize at this stage in my life that I will not attain it), something that no one
since Leibniz has been able to manage.
I was saying something more modest: that we should acquaint ourselves, deeply and
sympathetically, with the best argument of the key antagonists to our most cherished
beliefs. If that is an unattainable, our situation is more dismal than even I believe
it to be.
No doubt future generations will be amused at our attempts to understand ourselves
because we have missed things that are obvious to them. But we have to do right by our
own lights--whose else's should we use?--and it's no excuse to avoid Hayek because
there might be someone else, whom I do not know, whose work I am missing.
If you think there are better critics of the left's cherished views, the thing to do
is to tell us about them and present their views for discussion and appraisal, as I
have done with Hayek. Isn't this obvious?
In a message dated Wed, 2 Aug 2000 4:24:30 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Carrol Cox
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
<<
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A lot of people take this attitude, but I follow the dangerous course of reading my
>adversaries and taking them seriously.
Up to about 1640 (and on the assumption that only Europe counted) it would have been
at least theoretically possible for someone to make this claim in good faith. It has
not been an even remotely legitimate claim since then. . . .
Every single book you read is *also* a book you haven't read. To boast about giving so
much attention to Hayek is to boast about *not reading* some other author, that you
have rejected without having seriously considered his/her argument.
Incidentally, have you read the Collected Works of Stalin? I presume you *have* read
the Collected Works of Lenin.
Carrol
>>
