Return-Path: <socgrad-relay@UCSD.EDU>
	sendmail 5.67/UCSD-2.2-sun
	Tue, 16 Feb 93 18:42:59 -0800 for /usr/lib/sendmail -oc -odq -oQ/var/spool/lqueue -oi -fsocgrad-relay socgrad-list
Date:    Tue, 16 Feb 93 21:42 EST
From: <CGH2@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>
Subject: Re: Unimportance of philosophy
To: JEPSTEIN@Kentvm.Kent.edu

>WHile I'm not sure what the hell Pareto was talking about in the
>posted quote it really doesn't matter because a)he was an economist
>and therefore not a philospher or a sociologist and b) he was pals with
>Mussolini and therefore an asshole.
    a)  Pareto was indeed an economist, also a mechanical engineer, and also a
sociologist, though he did not have a degree in sociology.  For that matter
neither did Marx or Weber.  Would you then deny that they are 'sociologists'?
    Talcot Parsons (heard of him?) based his 'The Structure of Social Action"
on the writings of Durkheim, Marshall, Weber, and Pareto.  Pitirim Sorokin
held Pareto's treatment of the irrational in human behavior in the highest
regard.
   b)  No, he was not.  Mussolini used the writings of Pareto to give
intellecutal justification to his fascist regime.  Calling Pareto pals with
Mussolini is like saying Jim Jones was pals with Jesus.  Pareto never met
Mussolini, refused a medal that Mussolini tried to present to him.
   Further bits from Alan Sica's Weber, Irrationality, and Social Order.
'At this point Mussolini's relationship with Gentile and his mythical
allegaince to Pareto...'(p.25)
    'Another dimension to Pareto's lack of followers today is the political.
It is not only that he was identified after his death in 1923 as a proto-
fascist (an absurd charge) that makes him ideolgoically objectionable to social
science today.  He pointed out that elites always runs societies and that those
 who refuse to employ force at some point lose control to those who do.'
(p.257)
   Try to refrain from ad hoemien attacks, OK?  Especially when your knowledge
of the facts is based on myths and legends passed down like glittering diamonds
, when in fact they are made of paste.
let me point out that sociology is a philosophy, a positivistic one

>to be exact.  If we weren't philosophers the degree we are
>working on wouldn't be called a ":PhD" now would it.
>Sociology doesn't become a science because   a majority of sociolgists
>agree to use statisitcs to totally abstract society from their work, count up
>up the results, and publish meaningless research that has no relevence to
>anyth
>ing but the tenure process. Fancy graphs and charts do not make us a science.
>See Bergers Invitation for more on this.  But let me point out that the
Whose Bergers?
>rejection of philosophy by sociolgists is impossible and shows a persons
>lack of understanding about sociology. The idea that we do not need
>metaphysics is a metaphysical statement, Postivivism is a philosophy and
>the engulfment of sociology by statistics is a damn shame.
     The original post was in response to a post quoting Shutz.  I'm glad to
see that someone reads these things and cares enough to respond.  But, why the
tirade about statistics?  Did I mention statistics?  No, I did not.  Did I
mention anything about postivisim?  Are you mad at Turner for his defense of
positivism?  The point of the quote is this: (from someone who obviously has a
lack of understanding about sociology)  Ontological, philosophical and
metaphysical statements are ultimatly unproveable.  Their acceptance or
rejection is a function of the persuasivenss of rhetorical arguementation.
Kant, Lacan, Hegel, Heidegger and James do indeed have something to say about
the human conditionBut Who is Kant to say how I perceive the world and react to
it?  What did Kant know about Islam? What justification is there for accepting
anothers assertion about universalistic principles?  Prediction, observation,
and analysis is my answer.  Philosophic ruminations are usually crouched in
such vauge language as to make replicable observations impossible.  Knowledge
is not gained through blind acceptance of other's unproved assertions.
    A final quote 'Don't judge a book by it's cover, unless you cover just
another, cuz blind acceptance is a sign of stupid men standing in line'
    Sex Pistols 'EMI'.  1976