Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: anti-Pomo babble

From: Stephen Cullenberg Doug People might be interested to know that Jack Amariglio, David Ruccio and I have a forthcoming edited volume from Routledge on the topic Doug mentions. . . . Steve let me say I appreciate your persistence, in the face of all the abuse to which I have made my own mode

Re: Re: Re: anti-Pomo babble

Louis, you know better than to say something that is so provocative. Louis Proyect wrote: > > > > People might be interested to know that Jack Amariglio, David Ruccio and I > > have a forthcoming edited volume from Routledge on the topic Doug mentions. > > The book's title is _Postmodernism, Eco

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: anti-Pomo babble

Stephen Cullenberg wrote: >While the book deals mainly with economics, folks might also be >interested in another event where many people broadly influenced by >postmodernism (and many who are not) will be coming together to >discuss and debate Marxism. The Marxism 2000 conference sponsored

Re: Re: anti-Pomo babble

> > People might be interested to know that Jack Amariglio, David Ruccio and I > have a forthcoming edited volume from Routledge on the topic Doug mentions. > The book's title is _Postmodernism, Economics and Knowledge_ and includes > contributions from a large number of folks who have written a

Re: Re: Re: Re: anti-Pomo babble

At 02:06 PM 9/8/00 -0400, you wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yoshie, do you get extra hazard pay for reading these people? Are "these people" any worse than most of the economics literature, which is all too often obscure, abstract, remote from reality, and apologetics for the status quo? Doug

Re: Re: anti-Pomo babble

I had the same sort of training as Ken Hanly, somewhat later on, basically high powered analytical philosophy: rather than Austin and Bowsma, my icons were Quine, Davidson, and Rawls, my teachers Rorty, Harman, Kuhn, and Scanlon (undergrad), Gibbard, Railton, and Mary Hesse (grad). I did pick u

Re: Re: Re: Re: anti-Pomo babble

You can get the gist of most economics works fairly quickly. All the math and the like is just used to "prove" a simple a simple point. There is little complexity. In that respect, economics might be the easiest discipline in the world. The hard part is putting together all the weird little ide

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: anti-Pomo babble

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >BUFFALOS? --jks , . Doug

Re: anti-Pomo babble

Any number of problems that Popper cited were rejected, and finally, when Popper turned to problems of moral justification, Wittgenstein asked for an example of a moral rule. Since Wittgenstein had happened to pick up a poker from the fireplace and was waving it around while making his points

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: anti-Pomo babble

Me, an economist? Sir, there is my gage! And having shown little interest in philosophy? What would show a lot. pray tell, beyond gettimng a PhD in it and working the field until the jobs ran out? --jks In a message dated Fri, 8 Sep 2000 3:20:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Doug Henwood <[EMAIL

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: anti-Pomo babble

BUFFALOS? --jks In a message dated Fri, 8 Sep 2000 2:45:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Carrol Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: << Doug Henwood wrote: > > Are "these people" any worse than most of the economics literature, > which is all too often obscure, abstract, remote from reality, and > a

Re: anti-Pomo babble

I tried to avoid getting reimmersed in these recurrent pen-lpomo discussions, which are a sort of chronic cyberdisease. But this latest by "jks" was a little much. > I have read and indeed taught the major pomos & poststructuralists--Derrida, > DeMan, Foucault, DeLeuze & Guttari, Baudrillard, Ly

Re: anti-Pomo babble

>Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: > >>Hume & Deleuze, Hayek & Foucault, Keynes & Queer Theory: clues for >>inter-disciplinary research in political economy & postmodern >>philosophy? > >Excellent idea; want to collaborate? > >Doug That will be really interesting. As a matter of fact, it is you who gav

Re: anti-Pomo babble

>Yes, but I'm continually baffled by the energy with which a group of >progressive economists denounce "pomo," having otherwise shown >little interest in culture, philosophy, or "Theory." It's a little >like old vets getting together to re-fight the war, except there was >no war. Bashing postm

Re: Re: anti-Pomo babble

Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: >Hume & Deleuze, Hayek & Foucault, Keynes & Queer Theory: clues for >inter-disciplinary research in political economy & postmodern >philosophy? Excellent idea; want to collaborate? Doug

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: anti-Pomo babble

Jim Devine wrote: >BTW, Doug, is this the comparison we want to make (pomotistas vs. >neoclassical econ.)? isn't there a third alternative, like reading >LBO? Well of course. But I'm biased. Carrol Cox wrote: >The economists are clearly of the enemy, and are recognized as such by >all on the

Re: anti-Pomo babble

>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>Yoshie, do you get extra hazard pay for reading these people? > >Are "these people" any worse than most of the economics literature, >which is all too often obscure, abstract, remote from reality, and >apologetics for the status quo? > >Doug Hume & Deleuze, Hayek &

Re: anti-Pomo babble

I appreciate and am edified by Justin's summary below. Seems to me also behind much of the work of this school of thought is the project of getting more support for women's and gay liberation on the Left, and reputedly for liberations of peoples of color ( socalled new social movements). Howeve

Re: Re: Re: Re: anti-Pomo babble

Doug Henwood wrote: > > Are "these people" any worse than most of the economics literature, > which is all too often obscure, abstract, remote from reality, and > apologetics for the status quo? The economists are clearly of the enemy, and are recognized as such by all on the left. So I would

Re: Re: Re: Re: anti-Pomo babble

At 02:06 PM 9/8/00 -0400, you wrote: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >>Yoshie, do you get extra hazard pay for reading these people? > >Are "these people" any worse than most of the economics literature, which >is all too often obscure, abstract, remote from reality, and apologetics >for the status

Re: Re: anti-Pomo babble

At 10:12 AM 9/8/00 -0700, you wrote: >". . . their epigones in the American academy amplify and vulgarize them >to a ludicrous extent. . . " isn't that what epigones always do, no matter what the school of thought? isn't that what defines epigones? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarm

Re: Re: Re: anti-Pomo babble

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >Yoshie, do you get extra hazard pay for reading these people? Are "these people" any worse than most of the economics literature, which is all too often obscure, abstract, remote from reality, and apologetics for the status quo? Doug

Re: anti-Pomo babble

JKSCHW wrote, > I have read and indeed taught the major pomos & > poststructuralists--Derrida, DeMan, Foucault, DeLeuze & Guttari, > Baudrillard, Lyotard, Rorty, and made an effort to get a grip on > Irigaray, Kristev, Butler, and Spivak. I am pretty > confident that they share a family resemb

Re: anti-Pomo babble

I have read and indeed taught the major pomos & poststructuralists--Derrida, DeMan, Foucault, DeLeuze & Guttari, Baudrillard, Lyotard, Rorty, and made an effort to get a grip on Irigaray, Kristev, Butler, and Spivak. I am pretty confident that they share a family resemblance in advocating: 1)

Re: Re: anti-Pomo babble

Yoshie, do you get extra hazard pay for reading these people? > I've read every postmodern philosopher & literary critic of > importance (and then some); it's a part of the occupational hazards > of grad students in English. Therefore, my view is a considered > view, and if you so desire, I c

Re: anti-Pomo babble

>Gee, it seems that either a lot of folks have read much more >post-modernist stuff than I have or maybe it's that it is easier to make >sweeping generalizations about something on the basis of hearsay. There's >a lot of crap that gets written under the pretension of >post-modernism. The same can