Re: [OPE-L] today's critical scientific realism

[Andrew Brown <A.Brown@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jerry,
 
Alot of critical realists are Marxists - quite a few are not, and a small number of this latter group are more or less hostile to Marx. On the Bhaskar list the recent thread you refer to is quite an isolated instance though there has been the odd individual in the past who has defended similar views on the list, (in a slightly better way than the recent thread, imo).
 
Andy

	-----Original Message----- 
	From: OPE-L on behalf of Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx 
	Sent: Thu 17/02/2005 13:49 
	To: OPE-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
	Cc: 
	Subject: [OPE-L] today's critical scientific realism
	
	

	> Today's critical scientific realism would present the question as an
	> effort to specify the real definition of a natural kind.  We can ask
	> what the generative structures are that characterize a thing and
	> cause its persistence as the kind of thing it is.
	
	Hi Howard:
	
	Perhaps, but some critical realists it seems don't see the merit in
	examining Marx's theories today.  Thus, see the discussion on the
	critical-realism list re Han's annotations beginning with George
	Moore's remarks on February 5
	http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/bhaskar/2005m02/msg00001.htm ]
	but quickly  erupting into flames with Tahir's post on 2/7 followed
	by the thread "tahir - a jerk?".
	
	Does the question "why should we read Marx in 2005?" represent a
	division among critical realists (left-wing vs. not-so-left-wing?) or a case
	of critical realists vs. non-critical realists on the critical-realism list?
	
	In solidarity, Jerry