4) Hicks’ argument, which you did not understand, is that POMO is an evolution of the (Marxist) means by which to circumvent reciprocity (science, economics, and law) by claiming power (science/truth, law/power, economics/necessity) is sentimental and psychological (arbitrary).
Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 13:10:50 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055446588112470016
Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680
IN REPLY TO:
@Jonas_Ceika
@curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680
Leave a Reply