Re: [OPE-L] Toss-Ups, Tiebreakers, and Scorecards

From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Mon Mar 19 2007 - 03:53:40 EDT

Haven't been able to follow discussion of hermeneutics. But it seems
that we have at least two ways to go.

1. We actively look for apparent inconsistencies in the text because
their resolution will allow us to deepen our appreciation of the text
in its ability to capture the real contradictions of capitalist
production. Of course the assumption here is that inconsistencies can
be resolved and that there is an underlying unity to the text. Or the
assumption may be that while there are some minor inconsistencies
they are trivial. Which I think is a very acceptable approach whether
it's Fred dismissing the problem of double divergence or Kliman
dismissing a passage or two in which Marx'  view of what can change
prices of production seems overly limited and not consistent with the
thrust of his theory. I don't think it's unreasonable for them to
argue that these inconsistencies operate at an inappropriately
trivial level. I don't agree with them, would argue with them. But I
understand the logic of their replies, and it seems to me that no
theory could be defended if it could not dismiss at least some
inconsistencies as inappropriately trivial.

2. We do not assume that there is an underlying unity to the text.
For example Marx both wanted to meet the hegemonic scientific
criteria of his time and to devise a new view of science at odds with
the hegemonic one. He was torn.  Daniel Bensaid and Patrick Murray
have interesting things to say here.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT