to be clearer about this than the last time i posted on it (my "marx not stupid" post), i've completely changed my mind about all this being a bad reason for using the word "class" -- i agree with you (and dave), i think it's a GOOD reason to use the word class, bcz it means you GET the argument i'm referring to as ii. "ii. hunting for examples which overthrow the theory"
ie it's only a problem for you if you're going to get tired of explaining to certain respondents that your usage doesn't easily dovetail with theirs; or until you ensure that YOUR usage is the dominant one
what i am meaning by pragmatism is (i think) the move you make to defuse words like "contradiction" and "dichotomy" -- i am arguing that with science and politics, words like this are deployed to flag up PROBLEMS WHICH MUST BE SOLVED (ie logically and therefore socially intolerable situations); and what you sometimes have done, when you argue that they're not really dichotomies or contradictions, is make a handwave gesture to the web of socials conditions which the alleged dichotomy" exists in, to demonstrate is NOT logically intolerable (and this slightly skates away from its social urgency) (which the word "contradiction" may indeed not well express but does highlight as a problem)
(ie i am associating pragmatism with "defusing the situation", and setting it against political strategies which by contrast "sharpen the contradictions" or intensify the situation)
i guess by incommensurable i mean something a bit more psychological than i perhaps ought to -- viz you occasionally step away from particular arguments w.particular betes noires on the grounds that yr opponent is "paranoid" or whatever, and that yr debate wd become "codependent", which i take to mean that their commitment to a given line is fanatical and closed, rather than formal, speculative and open
closed: the default commitment in terms of politics that will get changes made? (absolute stubbornness a pre-requisite of effectiveness) open: the default commitment in terms of discussion, conversation, thought?
and you would be able to converse with the latter but perhaps not the former? in other words you are making a judgement that you (personally) are psychologically incommensurable with certain potential debate opponents, and that this reflects an incommensurability of "political philosophy" (which may indeed be rooted in stubborn unthought habit or character trait, and not anything "deep" at all)
no subject
ie it's only a problem for you if you're going to get tired of explaining to certain respondents that your usage doesn't easily dovetail with theirs; or until you ensure that YOUR usage is the dominant one
what i am meaning by pragmatism is (i think) the move you make to defuse words like "contradiction" and "dichotomy" -- i am arguing that with science and politics, words like this are deployed to flag up PROBLEMS WHICH MUST BE SOLVED (ie logically and therefore socially intolerable situations); and what you sometimes have done, when you argue that they're not really dichotomies or contradictions, is make a handwave gesture to the web of socials conditions which the alleged dichotomy" exists in, to demonstrate is NOT logically intolerable (and this slightly skates away from its social urgency) (which the word "contradiction" may indeed not well express but does highlight as a problem)
(ie i am associating pragmatism with "defusing the situation", and setting it against political strategies which by contrast "sharpen the contradictions" or intensify the situation)
i guess by incommensurable i mean something a bit more psychological than i perhaps ought to -- viz you occasionally step away from particular arguments w.particular betes noires on the grounds that yr opponent is "paranoid" or whatever, and that yr debate wd become "codependent", which i take to mean that their commitment to a given line is fanatical and closed, rather than formal, speculative and open
closed: the default commitment in terms of politics that will get changes made? (absolute stubbornness a pre-requisite of effectiveness)
open: the default commitment in terms of discussion, conversation, thought?
and you would be able to converse with the latter but perhaps not the former? in other words you are making a judgement that you (personally) are psychologically incommensurable with certain potential debate opponents, and that this reflects an incommensurability of "political philosophy" (which may indeed be rooted in stubborn unthought habit or character trait, and not anything "deep" at all)