any result, lacanians - marxistphilosophy

[Ralph Dumain]

While I thought through a lengthy disquisition with many digressions while 
doing my laundry, in the end I wrote only brief responses to you and 
Kareem.  I hope they clarify the basics, at least.  At this point, instead 
of writing a lengthy harangue on this topic, when I next catch my breath I 
need to wind up the Horkheimer argument.  It's a very important point, and 
perhaps others will fill in the gaps on the situation of the 1930s that 
settled the terms of discussion then, and with that in mind elaborate how 
we have to supersede that debate now.

I hope the distinction between materialism and positivism is taken for 
granted in this group, but one never knows.  One must also understand how 
McCarthyism affected the course of American philosophy.  I have not read 
John McCumber's book on the effects of McCarthyism on analytical 
philosophy.  However, I do know that materialist philosophers who 
gravitated toward Marxism or socialism were silenced and intimidated when 
not fired, and that philosophy students were discouraged from studying 
Marxism by Marxists themselves, as that would have killed any possible 
career chances.  And there was some important published work that could 
have made a significant difference but sank like a stone due to the 
political climate.  For example:

Philosophy for the Future: The Quest of Modern Materialism: Foreword & 
Contents
http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/philfuture.html

Also, regarding the assimilation of different philosophical trends such as 
phenomenology, you may know that Marvin Farber (one of the editors of this 
book) was a conduit for phenomenology in the USA, but was dissatisfied with 
its subjective idealist foundations and sought to assimilate it into a 
materialist framework.  He also did his best to preserve academic freedom 
at the University of Buffalo in the face of the McCarthyite witch hunt 
mentioned above.  This collection also contains Lukacs' critique of 
Existentialism; his essay can also be found on my web site:

http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/lukacsx1.html

At 07:18 PM 4/11/2003 +0300, j laari wrote:
>Ralph, tell me what was the note at the end of your post where you
>wrote about the ontological difference of natural and social sciences?
>See, sciences can also be demarcated according to the characteristics
>of their methods. In other words, and according to Heinrich Rickert:
>there are two irreducible viewpoints on differences between sciences,
>'materially' we make a distinction between the objects of sciences,
>'formally' the distinction is between the methods. One can utilize
>'natural scientific' method also in cultural sciences (as Rickert them
>calls), but 'historical method' is of lesser use in natural sciences,
>though Rickert himself believed it has some relevance also for nat'l
>sci's. I don't go into details. See the nearest English translation of
>his "Kulturwissenschaft und Naturwissenschaft" (1921).
>
>Sincerely, Jukka L

___________________________________________

Everybody funkin' and don't know how
They shoulda seen the bull when he funked the cow
Funked so hard they saw some smoke
He said let's get in the bed and funk like folk
Laughin' at ya

                            -- Parliament-Funkadelic