> Logical Positivism is not the enemy. The Vienna Circle were all progressives, Neurath
> was a Marxist.
i didn't say logical positivism was the enemy. but i do think it is pretty vapid stuff.
> One of the main goals of the circle in trying to purge language and our
> conceptual scheme of metaphysics was to purge the world of some very unprogressive
> things like nazi ideology and christianity.
well, there's a problem right there isn't there: how can you purge the processes of signification of metaphysics, since this presumes that there are no residues, no excesses, no contradictions which are actually (as i think a marxist epistemics would contend) constitutive of meaning in the first place.
> Clarity is important if you want to be precise, concise,
> unambigious and have your work understood outside narrow academic/intellectual
> circles.
why is it that those who argue for clarity are always presupposing that there is such a thing which is outside history? i reckon one of the most insulting things is to treat (construct?) the acadmic - masses divide as something to be traversed through the simplification of one's language. neither of my parents were literate in english, and my father was pretty well illiterate in his first language as well, which makes me relaise (unlike those who tend to take it for granted) that language (any languyage) is something that you learn, that anyone can learn. do we not assume people have dictionaries or that they are capable of complex thought?
> Its like what they're saying is so profound it can't be expressed in
> solid, workmanlike prose.
yep: solid, workmanlike - all very muscular, all very universalising....
be well, angela