logout
help
framed forum
go pro
subscriptions
account
create thread
PhilosophyGround >> Attn: Dogbert
| 4/26/05 4:25 PM | |
FudoMyoo
Edited: 26-Apr-05 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 11949 |
Can you explain how the leading logical positivist Otto Neurath could be a Marxist, since Marxism is considered pseudoscience by most? |
| 4/27/05 2:04 PM | |
|
Dogbert
Edited: 27-Apr-05 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 14796 |
Why not? Marxism is pretty broad an ideology. |
| 4/27/05 10:46 PM | |
|
FudoMyoo
Edited: 27-Apr-05 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 11990 |
So Otto didn´t view Marxism as a positive science then I guess?
|
| 4/28/05 1:18 PM | |
|
Dogbert
Edited: 28-Apr-05 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 14797 |
If you define Marxism as the study of "Das Kapital" than not. But Neurath was a socialist working on themes of the social scientist Karl Marx. |
| 4/28/05 5:15 PM | |
|
FudoMyoo
Edited: 28-Apr-05 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 12009 |
So you consider Marx work scientific ? |
| 4/30/05 8:05 AM | |
|
Dogbert
Edited: 30-Apr-05 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 14798 |
That depends. I don't consider the work of Newton to be scientific. Most of it is useless theology and metaphysics. But there are some important insights in his work. So it is with Marx. Jon Elster has written a nice book on what is here to stay in the writings of Marx, Making Sense of Marx. |
| 4/30/05 10:50 AM | |
|
FudoMyoo
Edited: 30-Apr-05 10:56 AM Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 12042 |
Interesting, thanks for the recommendations. When I read the book "Modern politcal theory" by Kymlicka, ideas by both Elster and Cohen was discussed in the chapter of Marxism. That the theological writings of Newton isn´t scientific is a nobrainer, but we all know that his work in Physics was. And I would say that his contributions was a bit more then just "some important insights". however, with that in mind, what more specifically of Marx work do you consider scientific? Or what ideas are "here to stay"? |
| 4/30/05 10:55 AM | |
|
Dogbert
Edited: 30-Apr-05 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 14800 |
I would say pretty much everythng he wrote but his dialectics and his theory of history was scientific. Some of it, like much of his value theory, was scientific and wrong. |
| 4/30/05 10:58 AM | |
|
Dogbert
Edited: 30-Apr-05 Member Since: 01/01/2001 Posts: 14801 |
P.S.: Of course my comments on Newton were overstatement. I just tried to get the point across. |
Reply Post
You must log in to post a reply. Click here to login.
