[OPE-L:8462] Re: Re: Re: History

From: clyder@gn.apc.org
Date: Thu Feb 13 2003 - 16:02:53 EST

Quoting Howard Engelskirchen <hengels@zoom-dsl.com>:

> History as science, of course, not as a collection of facts and events but
> as a study of modes of production, their life processes and transitions.
> Only a single science, I take it, because knowledge is a social product and
> as a social product is a product of history.  This is not to say that
> consciousness defines what can be known.  Like labor, the production of
> knowledge is a process in which both nature and humans participate, and
> nature has priority.  But Marx would not exempt, as Mannheim did, the
> physical sciences and mathematics from the sociology of knowledge.  (For
> example, and I certainly do not meant the question in a simplistic or
> reductionist and mechanical sense, why do rates of change become significant
> enough in mathematics to be independently discovered in England and on the
> Continent at just the time the production of relative surplus value begins
> to emerge as a practical problem?) 

This seems a little speculative.

A recently discovered manuscript of Archimedes indicates that he had
already formulated the differential calculus, this was reported in
Science within the last 3 months.

I see little reason to expect a need for analysing rates of relative
surplus value in classical Syracuse.

On the other hand the problem arises obviously in a number of 
areas - analysis of balistic trajectories for example, Archimedes
may have needed it for some of his mechanical inventions.

 Also, generally reliable scientific
> methods have shown over the past two centuries a systematic tendency in
> human biology and genetics to ratify existing patterns of racial and social
> power and subordination.

I think this is fair enough

>  What scientists can imagine, the conceptual
> resources they deploy, can depend on, e.g. the amplitude of anti-imperialist
> struggle.  Capital has been a powerful stimulus to the study of nature, but
> a comparable flowering of the human sciences no doubt depends still on a
> future free from the deformations of oppression and exploitation.  From that
> perspective, once attained, Marx's point would no doubt be easier to see.
> In solidarity,
> Howard
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "gerald_a_levy" <gerald_a_levy@msn.com>
> To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 6:43 AM
> Subject: [OPE-L:8435] Re: History
> > Re the following from [8431]:
> >
> > > "We know only a single science, the science of history" (Marx, _The
> > > German Ideology_,  Progress Publishers, p. 28).
> >
> > Is history, though,  the "only" science?   Indeed, is it a "science"
> > at all?   Why or why not?
> >
> > Solidarity, Jerry
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 15 2003 - 00:00:00 EST