Michael Pollak
Of course not. Those are theories of natural science. The world of meaning doesn't work that way. Science got its whole start by excluding intensions and interpretations and focusing entirely on forces --- a good idea when studying the nature world, which is made up of matter of forces, and where the existence of beings with wills was an illusion. But you can't do that with people. In the world of meanings, interpretation is everything. So everything's always disputable.
Michael
^^^^ CB: Engels says something very similar to what Michael says in distinguishing natural science and social science in the Chapter titled "Marx" in _Ludwig Feuerbach_
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/ch04.htm
In one point, however, the history of the development of society proves to be essentially different from that of nature. In nature — in so far as we ignore man’s reaction upon nature — there are only blind, unconscious agencies acting upon one another, out of whose interplay the general law comes into operation. Nothing of all that happens — whether in the innumerable apparent accidents observable upon the surface, or in the ultimate results which confirm the regularity inherent in these accidents — happens as a consciously desired aim. In the history of society, on the contrary, the actors are all endowed with consciousness, are men acting with deliberation or passion, working towards definite goals; nothing happens without a conscious purpose, without an intended aim. But this distinction, important as it is for historical investigation, particularly of single epochs and events, cannot alter the fact that the course of history is governed by inner general laws. For here, also, on the whole, in spite of the consciously desired aims of all individuals, accident apparently reigns on the surface. That which is willed happens but rarely; in the majority of instances the numerous desired ends cross and conflict with one another, or these ends themselves are from the outset incapable of realization, or the means of attaining them are insufficient. thus the conflicts of innumerable individual wills and individual actions in the domain of history produce a state of affairs entirely analogous to that prevailing in the realm of unconscious nature. The ends of the actions are intended, but the results which actually follow from these actions are not intended; or when they do seem to correspond to the end intended, they ultimately have consequences quite other than those intended. Historical events thus appear on the whole to be likewise governed by chance. But where on the surface accident holds sway, there actually it is always governed by inner, hidden laws, and it is only a matter of discovering these laws.
This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com