From: Dogan Goecmen (dogangoecmen@AOL.COM)
Date: Thu Mar 29 2007 - 16:03:57 EDT
Gerry, very very briefly. From dialectical point of view there may be indeed tension between scietific impartiality and political partiality, though this is not a contradiction as may be observed in bourgeois social and political philosophies. But Rosa says this is not a conceptual tension of hers or of Marx's. It is a real tesion arising from social relations in capitalism. Agreement between impartiality and partiality is supposed to emerge in communism because there is no contradiction of interests and therefore there no reason for partiality in view. I will get back to you when I come back. Thank you, Dogan -----Ursprüngliche Mitteilung----- Von: glevy@PRATT.EDU An: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Verschickt: Do., 29. Mrz. 2007, 21:34 Thema: Re: [OPE-L] rosa luxemburg Hi Dogan: You cited Luxemburg in her paper "Back to Adam Smith" [Zuruck auf Adam Smith] as claiming that *impartiality* is fundamental to the scientific method and that the 'methodological principle' of impartiality is related to the 'ethical principle of honesty' (bottom of page 3). Did she claim, though, that the theory advanced by Marx, Engels, and Marxists -- including herself -- was based on this 'methodological principle' of impartiality? Isn't there necessarily a (for lack of a better term) tension between a theory which claims to be impartial and at the same time is said to represent a particular revolutionary and class perspective? Isn't a 'partisan impartial scientist' an oxymoron? In solidarity, Jerry ________________________________________________________________________ Kostenlos: AOL eMail 2 GB Speicherplatz sowie erstklassiger Spam- und eMail Virenschutz. Sichern Sie sich Ihre persönliche eMail Adresse noch heute!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT