On Sat, 8 Aug 1998, Brad De Long wrote:
> I remember--coming from mathematics--being unable to make head or tail of
> Louis Althusser because he used the mathematical term "overdetermination"
> in what struck me as a nonsensical, incoherent, and inconsistent way that
> had nothing to do with its *real* mathematical definition in meaning.
>
> Hence I put down _Reading Capital_ after 100 pages and never picked it or
> anything else up again (except when one of my professors assigned an
> absolutely awful book by Hindess and Hurst).
>
> Can't say today that my allergic reaction to Althusser was a mistake.
>
> A basic failure to understand the meaning of the sources from which you
> draw your metaphors and concepts *is* in all probability a sign that the
> rest of your thinking is confused and faulty as well...
>
Overdetermination is purely and only a mathematical term? You need to read more! Why do you consider a scientific usage of a term to be the only appropriate use in nonscientific contexts? Next you'll be complaining of Freud's use of the term "complex" because it has nothing to do with complex numbers. Do you really want to make science the arbiter of grammar and vocabulary?
Yes, in scientific discourse, hold people consistently to accepted scientific terms. This is obviously necessary in order for people to build on one another's work. But just because scientists use term A in one scientific context does not mean that the scientific meaning of the term is necessary or even useful in other contexts.
P.S. I think Althusser is worth slogging through. The critique of free will is crucial.
Miles Jackson cqmv at odin.cc.pdx.edu