[lbo-talk] Neo-Lamarckianism???? Come on!

[Carrol Cox]

One can _never_ KNOW the correctness of one's construal of a text at all
complex; the hope here is not certainty but reduce disagreement to two
or three clusters of only mildly disagreement. No one will _ever_ know
for sure just how to construe all the levels of irony  in Swift's "An
Argument against the Abolishing of Christianity." No one will ever know
just when Pope began the composition of Essay on Criticism and just when
he completed the draft which was printed. There is no way of knowing
with any certainty whether or not Pope approved of certain changes
Warburton (or perhaps Pope) made in the 1751 edition of his works.

dI believe that the Dunciad focused on too many BOOKS, PERIOD, not on
merely too many bad books, but that is strictly a minority position and
I know of no way, even in principle, in which it could be determined. It
is not even certain that a statement by Pope in some letter stating
which would determine the issue; in fact such a letter would make the
issue even more doubtful for many.

There is no way of knowing with reasonable certainty, let alone
certainty, whether Austen was being flippant (ironic) as everyone bu me
supposes in the letter in which she said that P&P need a few digressions
expounding solemnly on some topic or other.

There is no way of knowing even the probable let alone certain validity
of any "If...Then" proposition about the Battle of Gettysburg.

There is no way of knowing whether or not 50 years from now any readers
of the archives of lbo will agree or think utterly banal statements here
about what buildins are ugly. The buildings many now regard as quite
beautiful were regarded as impossibly ugly 60 years ago.

More later on the uncertainties of construl raised by Albritton's
interpretation of _Capital_, _Theories of SV_, and _Grundrisse_.

Carrol

Miles Jackson wrote:
> 
> Charles Brown wrote:
> >
> > The basic point is nothing is unknowable in principle. Are you thinking
> > of something in art or literature that is unknowable ?
> >
> >
> No, I'm saying that scientific knowledge is not the only interesting
> form of human knowledge.  You seem to be assuming that "knowable" =
> "object of scientific study".  There are many domains where we "know"
> things without doing science.
> 
> Miles
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk