These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
|
Well, the literature on that book would probably fill a library so I
ought to limit myself. I don't know where the idea of "no revolutions" comes from, but I would have thought that the idea that the dominant paradigm being gradually eroded in the very process of working itself out is pretty suggestive. Maybe the fall of Apartheid didn't live up to the image of a revolution either? Anyway, I think there are a lot of parallels with both Vygotsky and Hegel, so long as one remains within the confines of a closed scientific community. The main thing I was struck by was Kuhn's notion of concepts as problem solution. Vygotsky said it many times, but for example from "The development of thinking and concept formation in the adolescent" in the Vygotsky Reader: "only during the course of some intelligent activity directed toward the attainment of a specific goal or the solution of a particular problem, can a concept come into being and take form." Or this paragraph: When you say "the cell concept of the concept is there all the time," I presume you mean the paradigm which is generating the problem-solving activity? Yes, until it falls into crisis. So you have an ideal, which first arose as a solution to a total crisis, and then sets up a new project to establish itself and solve its own problems. And thus all the subordinate concepts, its "special principles" (to use Hegel's phrase) appear in the form of problems needing to be solved. But the solution or not of every problem ricochets back on the "cell" as you call it. Does that make sense? Andy Carol Macdonald wrote:
--
*Andy Blunden* Joint Editor MCA: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~db=all~content=g932564744 Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857 MIA: http://www.marxists.org |
__________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca