Carrol wrote:
> What comments by whom? Without knowing this context the rest
of your post is unintelligible.
I'm not good at pointing fingers, and it was the general discussion going off on a tangent about cognitive science (not any one particular comment such as yours) that I wanted to address, plus the snippet on Marx's "absolutist determinism" which did not take into account the Hegelian background. This ain't no time to exhume that old 2nd International offal.
Philip Pilkington wrote:
> 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.
Critiquing marginalism from the standpoint of the philosophy of science is important, but starting from the "concreteness of the brain" smacks of, as DeLong would say, "intellectual masturbation", no offense intended.
Keynes was certainly no sucker for the utilitarian mentality, nonetheless (though I haven't read his Collected works,) he didn't grasp the crucial point about the logic, which makes his stance rather anecdotical. For a straighforward, yet perspicacious critique, check out Richard Norman's 'Reasons for Actions: a Critique of Utilitarian Rationality'.
_________________________________________________________________ Access your email online and on the go with Windows Live Hotmail. http://windowslive.com/online/hotmail?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_AE_Access_022009