tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post2729959336484567210..comments2024-03-28T14:47:11.132-04:00Comments on The Philosopher's Stone: DURKHEIM'S SUICIDE A MICRO-TUTORIAL PART ONERobert Paul Wolffhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-58869161331774557192015-06-09T20:22:32.616-04:002015-06-09T20:22:32.616-04:00See my papers on Durkheimian theory at:
https://i...See my papers on Durkheimian theory at:<br /><br />https://independent.academia.edu/RankinJohnAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12592753749400564652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-2555846319512861572011-12-09T23:25:06.072-05:002011-12-09T23:25:06.072-05:00Professor Vernengo, I agree completely. In my len...Professor Vernengo, I agree completely. In my lengthy tutorials on Marx and Ricardo, I tried all too briefly to do some sort of justice to the predecessors of Smith and Ricardo and Marx [and of course Marx does elaborate homage to them in the Theories of Surplus Value]. Forgive me for moving too quickly in trying to set up the problematic of Durkheim. I make the very bad mistake of assuming that folks who come to my blog have read everything I have ever written [!!!].Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-36132202019534420232011-12-09T23:14:21.166-05:002011-12-09T23:14:21.166-05:00And discovering the social as autonomous, I forgot...And discovering the social as autonomous, I forgot to add.Matias Vernengohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-81338464499831860572011-12-09T23:12:50.681-05:002011-12-09T23:12:50.681-05:00I'm probably too much of an economist (I'm...I'm probably too much of an economist (I'm sorry to say), but I think that in the works of William, Petty, Richard Cantillon and François Quesnay, which precede and anticipate some aspects of classical political economy (Smith/Ricardo/Marx), there is a clear idea of social division of labor and of a surplus, which allows for accumulation. In that sense, one can think of the pioneers of the surplus approach as preceding Hegel, and being as important as the latter, in influencing Marx's view.Matias Vernengohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09521604894748538215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-91159758316608657332011-12-09T06:02:26.662-05:002011-12-09T06:02:26.662-05:00Thank you for the comment and the information. Th...Thank you for the comment and the information. That is more than I am readily familiar with [although I have had my say about Elster's approach]. Whatever you think of one or another of these approaches, the old classics seem to me to raise more interesting questions than recent writings. In general, by the way, I find anthropologists to have more interesting ideas these days than sociologists.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-87410242079024674362011-12-09T05:07:25.782-05:002011-12-09T05:07:25.782-05:00I haven't read any Durkheim for more than thre...I haven't read any Durkheim for more than three decades (Weber was always my favorite of the Early Fathers of sociology), and I'm hoping that this mini-tutorial will prompt a re-visit. But I think that what Formerly is referring to may be some of the ideas treated in the article "Society, Concepts of" in the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. <br /><br />This article looks at three different approaches, citing modern references but all having roots in one or more of the sociological classics. Game theory & methodological individualism is only one approach. A second is "society as a system of communication", going back to Durkheim and George Herbert Mead. The third approach, focussing on social groups, goes back to Simmel and even Rousseau. <br /><br />The articles references include more modern treatments, e.g. a Durkheimian book by the anthropologist Mary Douglas called "How Institutions Think" (a title guaranteed to make any Weberian grind their teeth), the philosopher Margaret Gilbert's "On Social Facts" making use of "we" as a "plural subject", and Elster's "Cement of Society" as game-theory individualism.wallyverrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18358344785499490511noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-69247639220040740642011-12-08T17:55:22.120-05:002011-12-08T17:55:22.120-05:00Sorry, I'll just need to check out what you...Sorry, I'll just need to check out what you've written. I had something in mind, and by saying that I don't mean to be evasive; I just need to work it out in more detail before I bother you with it again. In the meantime, thanks for your response. I'll just have to take a careful look at what you've written/blogged. (Incidentally, my life is rather crowded with family duties as I am living with my elderly parents and am responsible for them. That means that quiet times when I can actually read and think are rare. So, any kind of serious working out of anything is not going to happen quickly. But, even your brief reference to<br />methodological individualism does help me somewhat. So, thanks for your patience, and (as always) I must say that I am glad that you are blogging even if I can't count myself as a faithful reader.formerly a wage slavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064562730082906589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-28626896500570416042011-12-08T17:17:11.801-05:002011-12-08T17:17:11.801-05:00I am not completely sure I know what you are askin...I am not completely sure I know what you are asking. I have tried, in my tutorials on Marx and the study of society, as well as in some of my published writings, to make clear my sympathy with the analysis of mystification, although I always think of myself as trying to make sense of the notion from fundamentally a methodologically individualist perspective. [See also my essay on Elster, posted on box.net.] When I have written a bit more about Durkheim, see whether you can make your question more precise, and I will certainly try to answer it.Robert Paul Wolffhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11970360952872431856noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-84429585213937973962011-12-08T16:14:04.650-05:002011-12-08T16:14:04.650-05:00For what it's worth: I'll be interested t...For what it's worth: I'll be interested to hear what further thoughts you have in this tutorial..... I think that I myself as a citizen of the USA, born, raised and educated in that country, spent a good deal of my life not believing in society---prior to Thatcher's famous pronouncement. Indeed, that confusion persisted through my graduate school days. And, to be a bit more contentious, it is my impression that there are significant bits of professional philosophy where ethical issues--questions about individuals---manage to replace the real questions, which are social. I am curious whether you would agree--and I say that with full awareness that I might need to get more specific....and, as well, with the awareness that in the realm of political philosophy, I am pretty ignorant......formerly a wage slavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16064562730082906589noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5687347459208158501.post-62042527338716074132011-12-08T13:54:04.670-05:002011-12-08T13:54:04.670-05:00Spinoza argued that if self-preservation is the ex...Spinoza argued that if self-preservation is the exclusive fundamental principle of the individual, then suicide, strictly speaking, is impossible.Don Schneierhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12751277350617015241noreply@blogger.com