Re: A rethorical complaint and two questions

[Ben Day <day@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 11:11 AM 1/3/2003 -0300, Javier Finkman wrote:
> Dear Henry:
>
> Thanks for your references. Still, my request was about quarreling
> interpretations rather than refutations. The issue I raised is why on social
> disciplines we have so many discussions about whan an author really said
> rather than if a view is right or wrong. Your references are mostly related
> to the latter issue but the discussions in the forum are usually related to
> the former one. I think the difference between both ¿attitudes? ¿behavior?
> among disciplines implies some epistemological consequences which go against
> methodological monism. Furthermore, they go against some types of pluralism
> such as Feyerabend´s type. Thanks anyway.

Javier - I think that, when we adopt an ideology, or a perspective, or a
school of thinking - call it what you like - we're not simply agreeing with
a set of ideas that hold together, we're also choosing a COMMUNITY of
thinkers and actors who we identify with. And similarly, we are also
positioning ourselves with relation to history - or in other words, the
intellectual and performative communities we become a part of have
traditions that we become a part of. I don't think we could do what you're
suggesting, even if we wanted to - simply weigh ideas abstractly, as if
their source didn't matter. Not least of all because we don't evaluate
ideas merely for their truth value, but we USE ideas, and we are concerned
with how others use ideas.  This use is political.  I think it's a
legitimate project to undermine what we - from a post keynesian or other
perspective - see as misuses of Keynes or any other thinker. Many
mainstream economists wish to identify with Keynes and call in his
authoritative weight on behalf of their perspective, while at the same time
smothering the radical underpinning of Keynes's system. Ultimately, the
point is not just to show that orthodox economics today is engaged in a bad
faith appropriation of its own tradition, but that this very tradition can
sometimes provide the basis for showing that the orthodox USE of its ideas
- its policies and prescriptions - are illegitimate and dangerous for those
actually concerned with human well being.

But I think I'm slipping into preachiness... Best to stop before I begin
calling for witnesses. ;)

-----Ben