<< KSCHW at aol.com wrote:
>
> Bhashkar's an obscurantist fool, not taken seriously by anyone in philosophy of science outside the cult. I do not understand why he has a cult. Let's stick to the serious people, please. --Justin Schwartz (a reformed philosopher)
_____________
CB: Wasn't it also true that official philosophers did not take Marx seriously in his day ?
>>
OK, you are Engels and Bhashkar is Marx. No wonder I am not a Marxist.
Among the "official" philosophers who do not take Bhaskar seriously are all the real philosophers of science who are Marxists, including Peter Railton, Richard Boyd, Michael Devitt, to some extent Phil Kitcher, formerly Richard Miller, Elliot Sober, G.A. Cohen, I could go on. B is not ignored because he's red or too origibal but because he is an obscurantist fool.
As for Marx in his day, he did not write for the mainstrean philosophers, publish in their journals, or appeal to their audiences--unlike the situation with mainstream economists and sociologists, who did take Marx seriously in his day an in the next generation. Marx was "recovered" for philosophy, which he has worked so hard to escape, by Engels after Marx died, then brought to the attention of mainstream philosophers two generations later by various people interested in communsim, from the Hegelian Lukacs to the logical positivist Neurath.
And I knew Karl Marx, and Roy Bhaskar is no Karl Marx.
--jks