Gary Tedman (unregistered) wrote, in response to bing:
Hi,
Yep, very interesting. I agree about Marx and his concept of human nature, and
sexuality, and what you say. But it is different to the classical humanist
essence (very). I did write about this (sort of) in an essay in RM
What an f-ed up thread title. You might find Piaget's book
'Structuralism' interesting. Can't find an electronic version, and the
book, at least in English translation, is out of print (used copies
around). I think Althusser simply resented the attention Levi-Strauss
was getting once he had 'set
Actually the discussion, such as it is, puts me most to mind of Bourdieu.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/fr/bourdieu.htm
In short, social science does not have to choose between that form of
social physics, represented by Durkheim — who agrees with social
semiology in
The Concept of Aura and the Question of Art in Althusser, Benjamin and
Greenberg
By Gary Tedman
click here for related stories: science
1-28-09, 10:33 am
I think we should not expect Marxism to produce a scientific (correct) theory
of art, which would be like a Marxist
This is an exceptionally good article. It's much
easier to read on the Political Affairs web site.
It's interesting to see the sophistication with
which some of these CP authors write. I don't
think this would have been possible in the Gus Hall days.
Like the one commentator, I too question
The Concept of Aura and the Question of Art in Althusser, Benjamin and
Greenberg
By Gary Tedman
http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/8042/1/359/
1-28-09,
I think we should not expect Marxism to produce a scientific (correct) theory
of art, which would be like a
