From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Wed Nov 27 2002 - 09:25:41 EST
Re Michael E's [8071]: > Up to this point I think you have provided a faithful recounting > of Marx's views and the intentions of his 11th Feuerbach Thesis. > But, being a bourgeois independent scholar, I don't adhere to this > scheme for change (revolution). (I told you I wasn't a Marxist.) So you did. Yet, you have a fresh perspective, raise challenging questions, and are certainly conversant with Marx. ... even if you are a self-described "bourgeois independent scholar." > Behind the mask of the scholar is the philosopher > or thinker who attempts to go beyond (or rather: step back from) > philosophy in a way different from the direction Marx proposes. In context, I assume that "the scholar" means you. For many _other_ scholars, behind their masks may lie something quite different: 'hired prize-fighters'. That is, if we strip away the masks of some 'independent' scholars, we can see their class allegiance and how their perspectives are not so infrequently apologetics for bourgeois society. > I regard thinking as a practice > in itself, a rather useless practice that neither says what is to be done > in any political arena nor addresses any particular social subject. > In fact, the thinking I have in mind accomplishes precious little, > but this precious little is also indispensable. The 'thinker' however only appears to be isolated. To the extent that the thinker socially interacts, those thoughts can become willy-nilly a part of a social dynamic of change -- or resistance to change. > The 'getting-over' philosophy I envisage would lead to a radically > different interpretation of the world. Thinking has the task of opening > the world historically in a radically different way (which ultimately, > but in unforeseen and scarcely perceptible ways, would change the > way we live -- but the thinker's role is neither to prophesy nor to > predict). That seems to depend on what the subject the 'thinker' is thinking about. To the extent that the subject itself is characterized by uncertainty and indeterminacy than any prophesies or predictions are problematic. > 'Radical' here means going back to > the roots of philosophy with the Greeks, not in order to uproot > philosophy, but to discover the roots of our own Western thinking which > has shaped the Western world through various epochs up to the present > day, and now on a global scale, in order to gain a distance from them. For the same reason many Marxists have 'gone back' to Hegel to discover the roots of Marx's thought. You carry it a few steps further back. An issue, though: isn't there the possibility of almost infinite regression? I.e. having gone back to Aristotle then isn't the next step in the same direction to ask who influenced Aristotle. Where does this end? In caves? In the stone age? > The way we think is also the way world > opens, and philosophical thinking is unknowingly present in all our > everyday thinking, say, when we employ the innocuous distinction > between "form" and "content", or think and talk in terms of "ideas", > "force", "energy", "dynamics", > "reality", "objective", "subjective"... > -- the list is endless. All these words > have percolated down from philosophical thinking in which they were > thought for the first time and are now used thoughtlessly. To rewitness > the struggle in which key philosophical concepts were first thought means > discovering our selves. No doubt there are many directions in which we can discover and rediscover ourselves. I certainly have no objection to inquiry into the history of philosophical thought. The question posted by Marx in the 11th Thesis is: what next? > I realize that such talk is overly grand and terribly general and that my > remarks here can only be paltry. With regard to Marx, I see a task in > learning to see how his own interpretation of the world in his > philosophical writings is embedded within the tradition of Western > philosophy and sets the horizon for his thinking. In particular, as a > student of Aristotle, Marx > adopts modes of Aristotelean thinking which could perhaps be 'loosened > up' to see something else in them. This may become apparent as we > discuss here further. OK. I look forward to hearing more about this in due course. > (snip, JL) but my question was directed at the concept of SNLT. Nicky's > recent post makes it clear that this concept has already been debated at > length and in depth in this forum. Yes, and we will discuss it at length and in depth again (and again and ....). Nicky, I'm sure, (as well as others) would be willing to talk with you some more about SNLT. What do you think about Elson's perspective on SNLT (see quote from her in my reply to Tony T)? I'm tiring so I'll pass over some of the rest of your post and go to: > > Doesn't an examination of value, though, lead one to the category of > > *'NOT-VALUE'*? (Reference, of course, to the _Grundrisse_). Thus, > > the examination of value leads one to go _beyond_ value, does it not? > Ultimately, yes. But I'd prefer to say: That is the step back from value > rather than the step beyond. For, stepping beyond implies some sort of > leaving behind, whereas a stepping back allows another relation to value, > a 'getting over' value, not an overcoming of value. Good point. A going 'beyond' -- surpassing -- of value requires the negation of the subject (capitalism). It is within capitalism, though, that value confronts not-value and vice versa. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 28 2002 - 00:00:01 EST