(OPE-L) RE: logical order and historical order

[gerald_a_levy <gerald_a_levy@xxxxxxx>]

Title: Re: (OPE-L) logical order and historical order

Hi Jairus:  It's great to hear from you (1). 

 

> A quick comment on this exchange - how can there be a 'historical order' which isn't grounded in some notion of historical necessity, i.e. of a necessity that drives the historical process (in this case, the history of capitalism) in some determinate direction?  If so, what is that necessity?  Is there a notion of historical necessity which is definable independently of the logic of capital (i.e. the so-called 'logical order')?  What concepts would it appeal to? <

 

These are good questions, but not simple ones to answer. There

is a concept of historical necessity in Marx, but it can not be simply

understood as for example some do when interpreting Marx's "general

conclusion" as presented in the "Preface" to _A Contribution to the

Critique of Political Economy_.    A question that could be raised is

whether Marx's concept of historical necessity as presented in the

"Preface" can be further developed without a underlying teleological

presumption.  As for whether a notion of historical necessity can be

defined independently of the logic of capital, I guess it could, otherwise

we would be making an unwarranted presumption that the history of

pre-capitalist modes of production can be grounded only in historical

contingencies. But, for the subject matter of  the CMP, the logic of capital

expresses a certain inner connection which encompasses a notion of

historical necessity.  But, this doesn't mean that the *order* of

determinations necessarily follows the *order* of the progression of

history.

 

>>>

A  possible way forward is to see how Hegel defines the relationship between the history of philosophy and the 'system' of philosophy in the introduction to his Lectures on the History of Philosophy. He provides a solution of sorts but one which involves writing 'essential histories'... <<<

 

I'll re-read that.  How are 'essential histories' different from 'stylized

facts'?  (hmmm.  Let me see if I can answer my own question:

'stylized facts' are held axiomatically to be true, whereas an

'essential history' is a product of a systematic exploration of the

essential aspects of a historical subject ??? )

 

I look forward to future exchanges.

 

In solidarity, Jerry

 

(1) You raised the 'participation rate' of current members from 87 to 88%!

(coincidentally, the cumulative participation rate for all current and

former subscribers is also 88%).