[OPE-L:6368] Re: Copernican

From: Alejandro Ramos (aramos@btl.net)
Date: Fri Jan 18 2002 - 19:57:44 EST

Re Gil 6367:

>>I don't remember that. Gil: did you ever claim to be a Copernican or
>>suggest that your perspectives are Copernican?


>Heavens, no.  Here's the relevant passage from my post 4243:
>>Would you say that embracing this hypothetical theory is tantamount to
>>rejecting "Marx's theory of the capitalist mode of production"?  If so, why?
>> If the theory affirms Marx's central claim that capitalist profit is based
>>on systematic exploitation of the working class (including the dynamic
>>aspects of Marx's argument, let's say) without needing to introduce an
>>additional theoretical entity--commodity labor values--and analyze its
>>possible connection to another entity--commodity prices---couldn't this be
>>viewed as an advance in, rather than a rejection of, Marx's theoretical
>>project, in something like the same way that Copernican cosmology
>>represented an advance over its predecessor, in part because it dispensed
>>with the cumbersome apparatus of Ptolemaic epicycles?
>I was simply characterizing a possible outcome to a thought experiment
>based on a reference to a well-recognized episonde in the history of
>science, without at all suggesting that any such "Copernican" revolution
>has been achieved in the present context.

Ale: Heavens Gil! If your --as Jerry says-- "perspectives" were not
"Copernican" why did you refer *precisely* to that well-recognized episode
in the history of science?

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Feb 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EST