tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8708273719674528189.post7159341170807091088..comments2024-03-22T00:20:38.510-07:00Comments on Adam Riggio writes: Can a Marxist Tell the Difference Between Theory and Thought? Research Time, 06/09/2017Adam Riggiohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14606510835439580828noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8708273719674528189.post-20819992416662396892017-09-07T04:14:55.746-07:002017-09-07T04:14:55.746-07:00You might like this. "Lenin was a very modera...You might like this. "Lenin was a very moderate person," said Ezra Pound. "Apart from the social aspect he was of interest, technically, to serious writers. He never wrote a sentence that has any interest in itself, but he evolved almost a new medium, a sort of expression halfway between writing and action."<br /><br />I'm not a very close reader of Lenin. But it sounds like something a bit different than leader by day / theorist by night. In fact, today's soi-disant leftists, it seems to me, also have a hard time keeping things separated. But instead of using language in a way that is virtually action, they are reacting to language as though it's a kind of violence. Instead of leveraging theory as a kind of practice, they seem constantly to let their theoretical insights devolve into an impractical outrage. They don't stop feeling long enough to actually have a thought.<br /><br />The trick, I think, is to maintain the distinctions between theory and practice, thought and feeling, and then to try to be precise in everything we see and do. This is hard, which is why many people choose only to see or to do. Some then go the extra step of calling their seeing a kind of doing, their deeds, visions. But I don't think such mysticism is a good strategy.Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.com