UnderGround Forums
 

PhilosophyGround >> Attn: Dogbert


4/26/05 4:25 PM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dogbert
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dogbert
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

Edited: 28-Apr-05
Member Since: 01/01/2001
Posts: 12009
So you consider Marx work scientific ?
4/30/05 8:05 AM
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dogbert
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
FudoMyoo
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dogbert
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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
Ignore | Quote | Vote Down | Vote Up
Dogbert
Send Private Message Add Comment To Profile

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.