On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:34:44 -0400 "Charles Brown"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ralph Dumain :
>
> At 12:59 PM 8/17/2005 -0700, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> Oh, but one thing they know is that they can label Soviet
> philosophers and
> those contaminated by Stalinist diamat as "shit" or "wort
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 18:34:44 -0400 "Charles Brown"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ralph Dumain :
>
> At 12:59 PM 8/17/2005 -0700, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
> >Well Hegelian and neo-Hegelian "logic" is really an
> >ontology. People can disagree about whether it is of
> >more than historical inte
Ralph Dumain :
At 12:59 PM 8/17/2005 -0700, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>Well Hegelian and neo-Hegelian "logic" is really an
>ontology. People can disagree about whether it is of
>more than historical interest; some of the Soviet
>philosophers who worked in this area seem to have been
>OK. I have
Ralph Dumain :
All this info is fascinating indeed. In the final analysis, what are your
or Jim arguing? Surely you're not judging the value of the Unity of
Science movement by the politics of their adherents, are you? Shouldn't
the merits or rottenness of people's philosophies stand on their
On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:08:30 -0700 (PDT) andie nachgeborenen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > Lost it's hold? Recall whom Quine quotes in his
> > > epigraph to Word and Object -- Quine was a
> > > right-winger. In fact, Neurath's dialetical holism
> > is
> > > central to the internal deco
OK, jks, after suffering through Cornforth's MATERIALISM AND THE
DIALECTICAL METHOD, I can see why you hate diamat as you do. This sort of
literature corrupts everyone indoctrinated by it. But diamat doesn't have
to be that dumb. I've been defending a more sophisticated version of it on
the
At 12:59 PM 8/17/2005 -0700, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
Well Hegelian and neo-Hegelian "logic" is really an
ontology. People can disagree about whether it is of
more than historical interest; some of the Soviet
philosophers who worked in this area seem to have been
OK. I have not made a special
--- Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You aren't jks, are you?
Yes
>
> All this info is fascinating indeed. In the final
> analysis, what are your
> or Jim arguing? Surely you're not judging the value
> of the Unity of
> Science movement by the politics of their adherents,
> are y
--- Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The problem with presentations of diamat is not the
> ontology,
Well Hegelian and neo-Hegelian "logic" is really an
ontology. People can disagree about whether it is of
more than historical interest; some of the Soviet
philosophers who worked in t
You aren't jks, are you?
All this info is fascinating indeed. In the final analysis, what are your
or Jim arguing? Surely you're not judging the value of the Unity of
Science movement by the politics of their adherents, are you? Shouldn't
the merits or rottenness of people's philosophies st
> >
> > Lost it's hold? Recall whom Quine quotes in his
> > epigraph to Word and Object -- Quine was a
> > right-winger. In fact, Neurath's dialetical holism
> is
> > central to the internal deconstruction of LP by
> > Hempel, Carnap, and others, and corew to the
> emerginge
> > neopragmatism that
Ralph Dumain :
Just one point of clarification: the gentleman who needs the Cornforth book
doesn't think it's shit, I do. My own opinion is that what matters in
Cornforth are his critiques of various philosophies--Popper, pragmatism,
positivism, Wittgenstein, etc. This fellow also needs Cornfor
Just a couple of observations here, Jim.
(1) You seem to gravitate toward the scientific end of Marxism, rather than
the soft-and-cuddly Hegelian end. You have accumulated quite a bit of
knowledge, which you've repeated on discussion lists for many
years. Perhaps you might consider consolida
Just one point of clarification: the gentleman who needs the Cornforth book
doesn't think it's shit, I do. My own opinion is that what matters in
Cornforth are his critiques of various philosophies--Popper, pragmatism,
positivism, Wittgenstein, etc. This fellow also needs Cornforth's Popper
b
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:46:44 -0700 (PDT) andie nachgeborenen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> --- Ralph Dumain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this particular
> > work by Cornforth was
> > later incorporated into his SCIENCE AGAINST
> > IDEALISM.
> >
>
Ralph Dumain
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this particular work by Cornforth was
later incorporated into his SCIENCE AGAINST IDEALISM.
^^^
CB: I don't know
^
I'm still trying to process the fact that this person apparently trained in
some sophisticated philosophy could descend to
The problem with presentations of diamat is not the ontology, but the
totally confused, embarrassing approach to logic, which was especially bad
prior to the 1950s. After that, the Soviets attempted to avoid soiling
themselves as foully as they had before. However, the damage has been
done.
17 matches
Mail list logo
