>
> I'm not here to defend Hegel and I don't see why defending his critique of
> formal logic would all of a sudden make me a full-blown Hegelian.
> What seemed "odd" to me is that someone would defend Keynes' against Marx
> by referring to Hegel, of all people. So Keynes' mentioned Hegel once,
> that's nice, but his acknowledgement doesn't show at all that he had
> appropriated the method or the critique and, as far as scientific philosophy
> is concerned, that's the most important thing about him. Bertrand Russell,
> for example, said he was a Hegelian for his first two years at Cambridge but
> you read his opinion on Hegel in his 'History of Philosophy' and it's just
> clutter, admittedly, Hegel's prose never did help.
> Since I'm not a Hegelian I am not obliged to answer your question,…I guess
> formality ain't so bad after all.
> _________________________________________________________________
> It's the same Hotmail(R). If by "same" you mean up to 70% faster.
> http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_AE_Same_022009
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
I don't think that anyone did defend Keynes against Marx, they defended him against marginalism and utilitarianism, at as far as I can see. I think what Ted was getting at was that Keynes, like Marx, was able to take into account a social ontological viewpoint of the whole (the Absolute?) while marginalism was stuck messing around with individuals. I don't think he was saying that he appropriated his method, I think his point was to show the affinity between the two. His method may not have shown it, but his socio-ontological conviction did, although this conviction was one of an elitist bourgeois. I'm sure we could make many more comparisons between Keynes and certain philosophic strands which run counter to utilitarianism and marginalism (Plato, Aristotle, Kant etc etc.)...
Sorry for assuming you were a Hegelian... well I don't know what I'm saying sorry for, I think Hegel was the most profound philosopher of his era.