Ted says the following propositions are rubbish and I couldn't begon to defend them with argument:
>
> > OK, Ted, you win. You have made Marx immune to refutation; apparently,
>to
> > even discuss him you have accept his premises as you understand him.
>Those
> > premises cannot be criticized, except from within.
Well, isn't that what you are saying? What else could it mean to say that, for example, it's no good to criticise Mark using Hayekian arguments becauase Hayek uses individualist premises and Marx doesn't?
In fact, my own Hayekian arguments don't depend on any strong individualist premises, so far as I can tell. I mean, I argue from facts about individuals, but these are not ptremised to be facts based on things oustide history and culture, but rather facts based on individuals in a social and institutional context. I take it that that's how Hayek in fact saw people; see Chris Sciabarraa' hayek, marx, and Utopia. Or anyway, if it's not hoqw he saw peoplem it's hwo I see people.
And it's no good to even
> > suggest a different, thinner interpretation than you propose.
You gave a very rich interpretation of Marx, one that has a certain degree of plausuvility, except for the stuff about internal relations,w hich is (to my mind) obscurantism, I can't make anything of it. However, even the view you attribute to Marx is right, any serious political theory has to contendw ith the fact that many, perhaps most, people are not going to be interested in such a view, and of the few who are interested, only a handful will accept any such perspective. So in a free society, a defense or practice of socialism must be based on much thinner that are acceptable to a wider range of people. Socialsim cannot depend on the acceptance of a particular conception of the good and a highly detailed philosophical anthropology and metaphysics, even if all that apparatus is true. But your approach seems to rule out this thin approach by saying you need to go whole hog or nothing.
I note that it
> > works both ways: Marx can't lay a glove on Hayek by your style of
>argument.
> > So we end up with a situation on which by Ted's Marx, capitalism is
> > wretched, and by Justin's Hayek (this is my reading of H, not a view I
> > wendorse), capitalism's great, and they're both right!
Well, you say I can't support this with argument, but that is an argument. Please explain why, on your view, MArx can criticisze Hayek byt not vice veras, if criticism of Marx depends on accepting his premises. Doesn't crioticism of Hayek likewise depend on accepting hsi premises?
Sure that suggests
> > there is something wrong with your mode of argument, Ted. However, I
>find
> > this a dull game, and won't play. jks
>
>These assertions are all rubbish. You couldn't defend one of them with
>argument.
>
>Ted
>
Wanna bet? I'm a lawyer and a philosopher. There is no proposition for which
I cannot adduce a plausible argument. That doesn't mean the propositions
aren't rubbish, but you play a dangerous game in saying that I can't argue
for them. Of courese I can. I just did. So there. Ppphhtbbtt!
I find it regrettable that after I commended Greg for his graciousness this thread had to deteriorate immediately into personalized insults and namecalling. Maybe it _is_ time to end it. But I commendGreg's good manners once again. jks
_________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com