Bhaskar's views may some of them be true and some of them are incomprehensible, are mostly not interesting, and and not very useful. B's not being a Marx is very much to his discredit, since M was a profound thinker whose views are largely true, quite interesting, and very useful, even though he wasn't Marxist either.
--jks
In a message dated Fri, 31 Mar 2000 9:27:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, "Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> writes:
<<
>
In a message dated 00-03-30 18:27:46 EST, you write:
<< 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 ?
>>
>>> <JKSCHW at aol.com> 03/30/00 10:35PM >>
OK, you are Engels and Bhashkar is Marx. No wonder I am not a Marxist.
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.
___________
CB: So you are not a Marxist, but you know a lot about Marx. Are you not a Marxist because of what you know about Marx ? Is Roy Bhaskar not being a Karl Marx to his credit or discredit ( I mean since you are not a Marxist) ?
CB
>>