SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 9 Jun 2011 15:41:12 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines)
On 06/09/2011 02:53 PM, Pat Gunning wrote:
>
> Expanding this line of argument, it seemed to me that he was saying 
> that each type of SOCIETY would tend to have its own logic.

If by "logic" you mean certain formal rules for transforming premises 
into conclusions, then no, each society does not have its own logic. If 
by "logic" you mean the way they construct their premises, the 
authorities, concepts, and notions to which they make appeal, then of 
course each society has its own logic.
> This is the basis for my reference to polylogism. It is similar to the 
> Marxist polylogism to which I referred, in which each CLASS has its 
> own logic.

Based on the second definition of "logic," I think it clear, by common 
human experience, that each class does have it own logic. At certain 
times, there might be some great overlap and a high degree of social 
cohesion; at other times, less so.

John

ATOM RSS1 RSS2