"Pure Philosophy"

[Justin Schwartz <jschwart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jukka worries that I will become upset that he is "socializing pure
philosophy." I will think no such thing. I don't believe in pure
philosophy. I'm a pragmatic Marxist. I think philosophy is a historically
contingent attempt to deal with particular problems faced by social groups
at different times. (I'm enough of a realist to think that the answers
such groups or philosophers come up with may have absolute validity, i.e.,
be true. But these true answers may not be interesting to other
philosopohers addressing the different problems of other groups at
different times.)

I have stayed out of the discussion of Spinoza because I know practically
nothing about him. I took one course that devoted about six weeeks to the
Ethics about 18 years ago. I retain a very dim impression, or as Hume
would have it, idea--if it were an impression it would be vivid. Anyway I
am incompetent to say anything intelligent about Spinoza. II will
therefore continue to remain silent as long as people go on about him
.
Except I will say this: I recall thinking very well of Stuart Hampshire's
little book Spinoza. In addition I have, but have not read, a book on S by
Henry Allison. I know Allison's work as a Kant scholar,w hich is
absoolutely first rate. On the basis of this I recommend the Spinoza book.
Wolfson struck me, whgen I read some bits and pieces if him, as very
scholarly, but not interpretive or analytic. He was mainly interested in
tracing S's sources, or so I seem to remember.

--Justin




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------