> Didn't Marx give a
> better explanation of capitalism than Smith or Ricardo did?
yes, i think he did. but was this because marx came after smith and ricardo? because he added more onto ricardo and smith? no. it was not an accumulation. it was, in kuhn's phraseology, a paradigm shift. and, i think we've discussed before the theory of knowledge contained and apparent in marx's writings, so on that note: i'm hoping that some folks see their way clear to an epistemological break on certain questions post-seattle '99 :)
> BTW, do you have a rational ground to choose Gould's account of evolution
> instead of Dawkins's?
apologies for the abridgement, but here goes: granting that i would want to continue to use the dichotomy between reason/rationality and emotion/ideology/etc (and it's still not clear to me that i should), i have both rational and emotional/ideological reasons; similarly, i have an emotional investment in the ideology of rationality (as do all children of the enlightenment) as i have a political/ideological investment in not denying the rationality of emotions (as do all those who've been relegated to the nether side of such dichotomies) ... and so on. that is, the tension remains so long as the conditions which produce and necessitate it remain, and isn't abolished by coming up with neat epistemological formulas, let alone transforming a dialectic into a binary.
or, to put it another way, epistemology is a fool's paradise.
(btw, re: the most recent bhaskar citation: why, then, take exception to my previous claim that ideology is homologous to capital?
Angela _________