To George Dalton (28 May 1961): Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mNo edit summary |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Page |n°=60}} Your defense of redistribution as a sort of exchange is <u>not</u> only catallactic, but the Benthamite variant of it: utilitarian. Such an undisciplined use of the terms would demolish the advances of <u>most of modern anthropology</u>. Middle 19th century fantaisies of atomistic individualism as the foundation of political science would be restored with a vengeance. | {{Page |n°=60}} Your defense of redistribution as a sort of exchange is <u>not</u> only catallactic, but the Benthamite variant of it: utilitarian. Such an undisciplined use of the terms would demolish the advances of <u>most of modern anthropology</u>. Middle 19th century fantaisies of atomistic individualism as the foundation of political science would be restored with a vengeance. | ||
| [[From George Dalton (2 June 1961)|Next letter from G. Dalton (2 June 1961) >]] | |||
== Letter Informations == | == Letter Informations == | ||
'''Reference''':<br> | '''Reference''':<br> | ||
'''KPA''': [[52/01]], 58-60 | '''KPA''': [[52/01]], 58-60 | ||
Latest revision as of 15:38, 29 May 2019
[60] Your defense of redistribution as a sort of exchange is not only catallactic, but the Benthamite variant of it: utilitarian. Such an undisciplined use of the terms would demolish the advances of most of modern anthropology. Middle 19th century fantaisies of atomistic individualism as the foundation of political science would be restored with a vengeance.
| Next letter from G. Dalton (2 June 1961) >
Letter Informations
Reference:
KPA: 52/01, 58-60