PEN-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]
Date:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Thread:
[ Previous
| Next
]
Index:
[ Author
| Date
| Thread
]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: WSJ on teaching economics
Well, both of those are things that I have been accused of
misunderstanding myself, not least by you, so I am inclined to give
W a large margin of error in his readings. There is room for
difference of opinion on these topics...
There is room here for much more than a mere difference of opinion.
For someone to claim that they have the *correct* interpretation of a
book others have misunderstood because of "...Hegelian language...
his refusal to give a summary" or say "what levels of abstraction
he's going to be working at" it is pretty clear that *correct* has
lost all meaning. There are various rational reconstructions of what
Marx *ought* to have written: Devine's, Wolfson's, Elster's, Cohen's,
Althusser's, et cetera. But none of them is "correct."
Rational reconstructions are not *correct* interpretations, they are
*corrections*.
Brad DeLong
- Thread context:
- Re: Re: WSJ on teaching economics, (continued)
- More on Democracy Now,
Michael Perelman Fri 20 Oct 2000, 02:41 GMT
[ Other Periods
| Other mailing lists
| Search
]