Well, there's the whole "labo(u)r theory of value" thing, which at least appears to posit a (supersensible but rationally deducible) reality behind the appearances.
----- Original Message ----
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 2:16 AM, Eric Beck <ersatzdog at gmail.com> wrote:
> In his book on Hume, Deleuze says this definition is nonsense. And I
> agree. Under this definition, everyone is an empiricist. Or no one is.
> It doesn't capture what empiricism really investigates, which is
> really relation between things and their movement, instead of the
> nature of things. If you accept that definition, Marx is certainly an
> empiricist.