[OPE-L:3142] Scholarship and 'dead dogs'

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Fri May 12 2000 - 09:34:24 EDT

[ show plain text ]

levy@sescva.esc.edu (JERRY LEVY) said, on 05/12/00 at 06:21 AM:

>The demand for scholarship is not idealist. ...

>If you don't want to read Hegel, then don't. I can't make you. But, in
>that case, whatever you have to say about the
>relationship of Hegel to Marx, based on a reading of Marx and secondary
>sources, has to be discounted.

Then, of course, 'whatever you have to say about' Althusser on Marx, Hegel
and Spinoza 'bas to be discounted': "I haven't read Spinoza in any depth
and...won't enter into a debate about the influence of Spinoza on Hegel"
[Jerry, 3126]

But remember "the ill-humored, arrogant and medicre epigones who now talk
large in educated [scholarly? PZ] German circles began to take pleasure in
treating Hegel in the same way as the good Moses Mendelssohn treated
Spinoza in Lessing's time, namely as a 'dead dog'." [*Capital, Vol. 1*,
Postface to 2nd German edition]. In other words, neither Hegel nor
Spinoza are 'dead dogs', at least for Marx and Althusser.

Paul Z. -- let's move forward: with Luxemburg's *Accumulation*?

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EDT