(OPE-L) RE: logical order and historical order

From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Fri Feb 13 2004 - 09:19:01 EST

Re: (OPE-L) logical order and historical orderHi Jairus:  It's great to hear from you (1). 

> A quick comment on this exchange - how can there be a 'historical order' which isn't grounded in some notion of historical necessity, i.e. of a necessity that drives the historical process (in this case, the history of capitalism) in some determinate direction?  If so, what is that necessity?  Is there a notion of historical necessity which is definable independently of the logic of capital (i.e. the so-called 'logical order')?  What concepts would it appeal to? <

These are good questions, but not simple ones to answer. There
is a concept of historical necessity in Marx, but it can not be simply
understood as for example some do when interpreting Marx's "general
conclusion" as presented in the "Preface" to _A Contribution to the
Critique of Political Economy_.    A question that could be raised is
whether Marx's concept of historical necessity as presented in the 
"Preface" can be further developed without a underlying teleological 
presumption.  As for whether a notion of historical necessity can be
defined independently of the logic of capital, I guess it could, otherwise
we would be making an unwarranted presumption that the history of
pre-capitalist modes of production can be grounded only in historical
contingencies. But, for the subject matter of  the CMP, the logic of capital
expresses a certain inner connection which encompasses a notion of
historical necessity.  But, this doesn't mean that the *order* of 
determinations necessarily follows the *order* of the progression of

A  possible way forward is to see how Hegel defines the relationship between the history of philosophy and the 'system' of philosophy in the introduction to his Lectures on the History of Philosophy. He provides a solution of sorts but one which involves writing 'essential histories'... <<<

I'll re-read that.  How are 'essential histories' different from 'stylized
facts'?  (hmmm.  Let me see if I can answer my own question: 
'stylized facts' are held axiomatically to be true, whereas an
'essential history' is a product of a systematic exploration of the
essential aspects of a historical subject ??? )

I look forward to future exchanges.

In solidarity, Jerry

(1) You raised the 'participation rate' of current members from 87 to 88%!
(coincidentally, the cumulative participation rate for all current and 
former subscribers is also 88%).

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 14 2004 - 00:00:01 EST