Eubulides wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
>
> > Ah come on. Give an argument. I really don't understand the concept of
> > "expressing one's individuality." What does it mean? What is an
> > "individuality," and how can it be expressed? I wouldn't even know how
> > to begin to answer either of these questions.
>
> ===================
>
> You have fetishized agentless causation for far too long for any argument
> to sway you.
I'm asking for an explanation more than an argument, actually, since I really don't have the slightest clue what "individuality" (as something to express) can possibly mean. It seems to me to be an advertising cliche.
Also, usually the point of an argument is to sway bystanders, not the "opposition."
A further point, both your comments and Doug's seem to be more about me than about the question of individuality and its expression.
And finally, I never knew that I advocated, let alone fetishized, "agentless causation." Unless you mean that to deny Milton's conception of social causation is to deny any agency whatever. Jim Blaut once argued on the marxism list that if we knew all the "facts" we wouldn't need to study relations. Do you mean that if we knew "all the people," we wouldn't need to study social relations to understand history?
Carrol