Louis Proyect wrote:
Leibniz and Whitehead are
key to Harvey (while obviously having nothing to do with Marx)
It's not obvious to me. Leibniz is part of the German idealist tradition
sublated by Marx.
The dialectical relation of "sublation" is not a relation of identity. That
Whitehead's
Whitehead:
"When we think of freedom, we are apt to confine ourselves to freedom of
thought, freedom of the press, freedom for religious opinions. Then the
limitations to freedom are conceived as wholly arising from the antagonisms
of our fellow men. This is a thorough mistake. The massive
Louis writes:
This sounds like Malthus to me, not Marx.
This must be the same hearing problem that led you mistakenly to attribute
to Whitehead the Leibnizian theory of the 'best of possible worlds'.
"the Malthusian Law, with its sociological consequences, is not an iron
necessity. ...
Whitehead:
"Nature is plastic, although to every prevalent state of mind there
corresponds iron nature setting its bounds to life. Modern history begins
when Europeans passed into a new phase of understanding which enabled them
to introduce new selective agencies, unguessed by the older
Louis writes:
This sounds like Will and Ariel Durant.
This sounds like Louis Proyect.
Ted
--
Ted WinslowE-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Division of Social Science VOICE: (416) 736-5054
York UniversityFAX: (416) 736-5615
4700 Keele
Louis Proyect wrote:
Whitehead:
"Nature is plastic, although to every prevalent state of mind there
corresponds iron nature setting its bounds to life. [snip]
It is a false dichotomy to think of Nature and Man. Mankind is that factor
*in* Nature which exhibits in its most intense
I'm convinced that Ted is wrong in some ways -- but he sure as hell is
not wrong in ways that can be thrown off this simply.
Carrol
The problem with Whitehead (and Leibniz) and Harvey's appropriation of both
thinkers is that there is no concept of contradiction, struggle,
Louis Proyect wrote:
For example, when Whitehead writes, "Nature is always about the
perpetual exploration of novelty," you lose the other side of the equation
which is about crisis and destruction.
Agreed -- this fits my memory of Whitehead, whom I haven't read in
almost 40 years.
Louis Proyect wrote:
. For example, only 4 years ago Joel Kovel wrote a lengthy piece in
CNS that argued that Marxism is weak on ecological questions because it
lacks a spiritual dimension.
I always have thought that the Unconscious was the Holy Ghost in 19th-c
positivist disguise. That
Meanwhile, Lou: can we not distinguish Marx from Marxism here (as Marx did)
and acknowledge at least the potential compatibility of Kovel and Foster's
positions, given that Foster is interpreting Marx, as opposed to Marxism,
which, by your reading, is the object of Kovel's criticism?
Michael K.
There are different meanings to the word "materialism" Please clearify what you
mean.
Rod
Louis Proyect wrote:
Carrol Cox:
with any precision in *Poverty of Philosophy*; and (b) most of what I
would think of as historical materialism can be defended independently of
any particular view
G'day Michael,
Whilst I agree with you, I suppose Protestant 'Man' (and I still think Weber
was on to something about the link between Protestantism and Capitalism - he
just got it the wrong way 'round) would lay claim to spirituality, too -
only it is a poor little thing between 'him' and Him,
I wrote:
actually, there are good reasons to avoid the terms historical materialism
and dialectical materialism. They aren't Marx's terms.
Mine replies:
Really? Marx says in Preface to the French edition of Capital (Tucker
ed, p.301) the following:
"My DIALECTIC METHOD is not only different
Carroll writes"
I blow hot and cold on the usefulness of the term "dialectical
materialism," but even when I warm to it I don't like to see it posited
as *the* philosophical basis for "historical materialism."
Right. "a" philosophical basis for Marx's materialist conception of
history
Those interested in the issue of Naturdialectik or what has
been known since Plekhanov as "Dialectical Materialism'
may want to read my paper on 'Marx's Ecology:
Synthesizing Dialectics of Praxis and Nature" at
http://www.egroups.com/files/red-green/
To read it, you'll have to subscribe to the
Here are two more texts from Marx (Tom Walker has them on his web site
http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/dispose.htm) elaborating the idea of "free
activity" and of "wealth" as "free time" for "the artistic, scientific etc.
development of the individuals", "the free development of individualities".
Ted:
As I mentioned earlier, criticisms of scientific materialism that offer in
its place what amounts to a "dialectics of nature" can be found in Whitehead
(as an explicit criticism of Darwin's ontological premises, in *The Function
of Reason*).
It's interesting to compare David Harvey's
Engels uses "materialist dialectics" in _ Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical
German Philosophy_.
CB
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/24/00 10:31AM
I wrote:
actually, there are good reasons to avoid the terms historical materialism
and dialectical materialism. They aren't Marx's
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/24/00 11:04AM
Carroll writes"
I blow hot and cold on the usefulness of the term "dialectical
materialism," but even when I warm to it I don't like to see it posited
as *the* philosophical basis for "historical materialism."
Right. "a" philosophical
In my view, while Marx's work before the mid-1850s focuses
on a socio-historical theory of knowledge, which necessarily
removes Philosophy from its privileged place in a hierarchy of
knowledges, Marx's remarks in later life (see his conversations
with Alexei Voden and Liebknecht's reminiscences)
I wrote:
actually, there are good reasons to avoid the terms historical materialism
and dialectical materialism. They aren't Marx's terms.
Mine replies:
Really? Marx says in Preface to the French edition of Capital (Tucker
ed, p.301) the following:
"My DIALECTIC METHOD is not only different
and "historical materialism" in letters to Joseph Bloch
Mine
Engels uses "materialist dialectics" in _ Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of
Classical German Philosophy_.
CB
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/24/00 10:31AM
I wrote:
actually, there are good reasons to avoid the terms
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/23/00 10:34PM
In a message dated 5/23/00 9:56:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I blow hot and cold on the usefulness of the term "dialectical
materialism,"
but even when I warm to it I don't like to see it posited as *the*
philosophical
basis
Jim Devine wrote:
do you have any evidence that Marx followed Rousseau in this way?
Maybe this seems like a cop-out but I don't want to argue this point by
point, right now. Most of us have read enough of both men to have some
notion of what Rousseau's influences on Marx were, and you've just
Generally, we agree, now that I see that you're not emphasizing Marx's
psychology as much as it appeared.
At 10:10 AM 5/23/00 +0100, you wrote:
Jim Devine wrote:
do you have any evidence that Marx followed Rousseau in this way?
Maybe this seems like a cop-out but I don't want to argue this
I wrote:
yes, it's true that the actual revolution in Russia turned into the kind
of sh*t that he and Engels predicted would occur if a revolution
occurred in a poor country (in the GERMAN IDEOLOGY).
Mine wrote:
by the way, do you have any evidence to your claims from German Ideology?
Jim Devine wrote:
I think the link between Marx and Rousseau would best be found through
Hegel (though Marx was of course familiar with Rousseau).
Knowledge of Rousseau is the gap in my education which I lament
most -- so I may be way off here. But it seems to me (going in part
from
Knowledge of Rousseau is the gap in my education which I lament most -- so
I may be way off here. ... the great service
Rousseau performed for later radical reformers and revolutionaries was to
perceive "society" as a work of art rather than a "natural"
expression of human nature. The
At 12:38 PM 5/23/00 -0400, you wrote:
Jim Devine:
Also, the Nicaraguan Sandinistas argued that the active participation and
enthusiasm of the people could substitute for the narrowly-defined forces
of production.
Not true.
okay, but what was true?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jim Devine:
Also, the Nicaraguan Sandinistas argued that the active participation and
enthusiasm of the people could substitute for the narrowly-defined forces
of production.
Not true.
okay, but what was true?
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Lou
okay, but what was true?
Sandinistas were pragmatists. They sought to develop what can be accurately
called a "mixed economy" despite the Reaganite charge that they were
Communists. The important difference between their attempt and failed
attempts such as Arbenz's in Guatemala is that the
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/23/00 11:53AM
I'm following critical-realist methodology, in which paradigm X can only
beat paradigm Y by incorporating its valid components (and explaining its
short-comings).
___
CB: Marx and Engels call it extracting the rational kernel and
At 01:59 PM 5/23/00 -0400, you wrote:
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/23/00 11:53AM
I'm following critical-realist methodology, in which paradigm X can only
beat paradigm Y by incorporating its valid components (and explaining its
short-comings).
___
CB: Marx and Engels call it
It doesn't differ as far as I can tell.
At 02:21 PM 5/23/00 -0400, you wrote:
This methodology does not seem terribly clear to me. how does it differ
from historical materialism to be brief?
Mine
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] 05/23/00 11:53AM I'm
following critical-realist methodology, in
in any case, a self-identified Marxist would instead use historial
materialism. If this methodology has the same connotations with h.m, then
why to substitute h.m with a different name?
Mine
It doesn't differ as far as I can tell.
At 02:21 PM 5/23/00 -0400, you wrote:
This methodology does
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Jim Devine
Sent: 23 May 2000 16:53
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:[PEN-L:19455] Re: RE: Marx's life and theory
I think the link between Marx and Rousseau would best be found through
Hegel
Mine wrote:
in any case, a self-identified Marxist would instead use historial
materialism. If this methodology has the same connotations with h.m, then
why to substitute h.m with a different name?
actually, there are good reasons to avoid the terms historical materialism
and dialectical
BTW, I'm surprised you should think that we are otherwise in agreement. I
have not changed my position, namely that Marx came to reject the leading
role of the working class. Did you change yours?
no, I just came to understand that our differences weren't as large as I
thought and that I
Mine wrote:
in any case, a self-identified Marxist would instead use historial
materialism. If this methodology has the same connotations with h.m,
then
why to substitute h.m with a different name?
actually, there are good reasons to avoid the terms historical
materialism
and dialectical
Jim Devine wrote:
I made two errors in this thread. (1) it's not "historical materialism"
that meshes so well with critical realism; rather, it's "dialectical
materialism," which is interpreted as the philosophical basis for
"historical materialism." (2) It wasn't Roy Bhaskar who expressed
In a message dated 5/23/00 9:56:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
I blow hot and cold on the usefulness of the term "dialectical
materialism,"
but even when I warm to it I don't like to see it posited as *the*
philosophical
basis for "historical materialism."
Even
41 matches
Mail list logo
