Exactly. The Marxists who think this way tend to be Hegelians or Althusserian structuralists. That is, they're well "educated," but not so smart.
IMHO, Marx and Marxists have had a lot of important insights into the workings of the real world of capitalism and other modes of production. ================== Do you have a poll............................. Fuck. On Sun, Aug 18, 2013 at 8:02 PM, Jim Devine <[email protected]> wrote: > Jurriaan Bendien writes: > >>... Role theory was certainly challenged by feminists concerned with gender >> roles, but the concept of role itself and its theoretical status were rarely >> interrogated. < > > > > So what is this "role theory" anyway? > > > >> Most of the Marxist Left ... implicitly or explicitly accepted a >> structural-functionalist concept of role in their social ontology. ...< > > > > Really? You've done an opinion poll to check the empirical validity of that > statement? > > More importantly, there are a lot of Marxist propositions that that are > illogical, unempirical, functionalist, etc. (just as many liberal, fascist, > "Communist," etc., propositions have similar problems). > > But the point is not to sweep some abstraction called "Marxism" off the face > of the earth because of such errors, as Jurriaan seems to want to do. > > IMHO, Marx and Marxists have had a lot of important insights into the > workings of the real world of capitalism and other modes of production. > (Alas, intellectual property rights laws don't prevent people from using the > word "Marxism" in a large number of different ways, some of them > disgusting.) Thus, I see the point as being to get rid of illogic, > anti-empirical assertions, functionalism and the like. (Obscure jargon is > another.) In my experience those flaws are totally unnecessary to a Marxist > approach to understanding the social reality so that a cleaned-up theory can > be produced. > > > > I had written: > >>> Contrary to Jurriaan's assertion, I do not define words to suit myself. >>> Rather, the point is to have a clear definition that's generally accepted by >>> the others one is communicating with, because that promotes rational >>> discourse. And the other point (that I repeat too often) is that there are >>> no _correct_ definitions, since we don't live in Plato's world. << > > > Jurriaan responded: > >> It is patently absurd to say that “there are no correct definitions” .... >> There are correct and incorrect definitions, appropriate definitions and >> inappropriate ones… < > > > > "patently absurd"? Interestingly (and sadly), Jurriaan rejects my assertion > out of hand without even _asking_ me what I meant by "correct," i.e., > without wondering what definition I was using. Perhaps he thinks he can read > my mind. (That can't be, since it's usually too hard for _me_ to read my > mind!) > > > > The fact is that definitions are _conventional_, because they made by people > as part of the process of communication with other people (or with > themselves as part of thinking). Definitions differ between languages and > social groups. They often vary with context. Thus, for some (and in some > contexts) "correct" means "morally correct." For others, it means > "empirically correct" (fitting the known reality outside one's head). For > yet others, it means "logically (or mathematically) correct." And then there > are those for whom it means "politically correct." > > > > More importantly, when I say that there are no “correct” definitions, it’s a > response to the futility of arguing about the meaning of words (as I’ve said > too many times on pen-l). So I state a clear definition (or use some else’s > clear definition) and then go from there. As I said, “the point is to have a > clear definition that's generally accepted by the others one is > communicating with, because that promotes rational discourse.” Of course, my > making that statement doesn’t prevent Jurriaan from interpreting my > following statement out of context, ignoring the sentence before it. > > > > Especially when taken out of context, my statement above (“there are no > _correct_ definitions”) was extremely cryptic (and hurried), because I felt > insulted by Jurriaan’s outrageous and unsubstantiated assertion that I > define words to suit myself. But the reference to Plato should have tipped > him off that I was referring to empirically correct. > > On the issue of empirical correctness, definitions are _abstract_, which > means that they cannot correspond exactly to the concrete (empirical) > reality outside of our heads. The latter is complicated and messy (unlike > the nice simplicity of definitions). Even with defining an object as simple > as a “horse,” the question still remains “where do you draw the line? Isn’t > a donkey really a horse?” Well, horses and donkeys are different species > because if a horse and a donkey have offspring, they will be sterile. Except > that mules aren’t always sterile. There are always shades of gray. > > > > (I’m no philosopher, but as far as I can tell Plato thought the “correct” > definition would correspond to the divine “form,” which he assumed exists. > The form is assumed to be simple (having no complicated concrete details, no > shades of gray). Both the definition and the form are abstract, so it’s > possible for a human-made definition to be correct in defining the form. Of > course, Plato assumed that he’s the type who can find the correct > definition. Not everyone is so smart.) > > > > "Correct" is very different from "appropriate." I don’t see why Jurriaan > equates these two. If we do equate them, then my point is obvious, since > appropriateness depends on context (and one's purpose). If appropriateness > depends on context and purpose, so does correctness. There is no (uniquely) > "correct" or appropriate definition. > > > > Jurriaan goes on to say that > while a definition may be correct, it may not > be adequate for a given purpose. A definition may be relevant or irrelevant, > applicable or inapplicable, useful or useless.< > > > > I agree with this, except that “correct” definitions would be those that > people use as part of a communication and thinking processes (rather than > being empirically correct). > > > > Jurriaan continues: > >> For example, a textbook definition of the “real interest rate” is simply >> any given nominal rate adjusted for inflation. That definition is correct, >> as far as it goes.< > > > > In other words, the “correctness” (or appropriateness) of the definition > depends on the context, as I’ve said. > > -- > JD > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
