Althusserian and French anti-humanism in general is bullshit, the French intellectual's way of, as they say, epater les bourgeois. If "humanism" alludes to something else, then that should be decoded. And I think Tedman is quite mistaken.
At 11:10 PM 2/5/2009, Charles Brown wrote: >Hello, Thanks for your response. Yes, I kinda >thought the idea might be that much humanism is >philosophical idealism ( in Engels famous sense >in _Ludwig Feuerbach: The End of Classical >German philsophy_, two great camps of >philosophy,idealism and materialism, especially >modern philosophy, on the relationship between >thought and being, and all that). He's probably >avoiding being subjective as opposed to >objective, too. But "humanism" as the term is >commonly used today in English, is probably part >of the rational kernel of idealism that we want >to extract. Something might be lost in the >translation from French. But even the French CP >paper is name _L'Humanite_. Anyway, I'll try to >look at Althusser's essay, because I have become >more and more a respecter of Althusser over >time. And I subscribe to a certain amount of >Levi-Straussian structuralism from my schooling >in anthropology( even with its aroma of >philosophical idealism ,smile); and Althusser >was a structuralist in that school. Ideology and >all that. By the way, I think Marx did have a >concept of human nature, in his discussion of >species-being in the _Economic and Philosophic >Manuscripts of 1844_. He expresses an >essentialism on the relationship between women >and men that knocks the socks off the >post-modernist anti-essentialists in the >following passage: In the approach to woman as >the spoil and hand-maid of communal lust is >expressed the infinite degradation in which man >exists for himself, for the secret of this >approach has its unambiguous, decisive, plain >and undisguised expression in the relation of >man to woman and in the manner in which the >direct and natural species-relationship is >conceived. The direct, natural, and necessary >relation of person to person is the relation of >man to woman. In this natural >species-relationship manâs relation to nature >is immediately his relation to man, just as his >relation to man is immediately his relation to >nature his own natural destination. In >this relationship, therefore, is sensuously >manifested, reduced to an observable fact, the >extent to which the human essence has become >nature to man, or to which nature to him has >become the human essence of man. From this >relationship one can therefore judge manâs >whole level of development. From the character >of this relationship follows how much man as a >species-being, as man, has come to be himself >and to comprehend himself; the relation of man >to woman is the most natural relation of human >being to human being. It therefore reveals the >extent to which manâs natural behaviour has >become human, or the extent to which the human >essence in him has become a natural essence >the extent to which his human nature has come to >be nnatural to him. This relationship also >reveals the extent to which manâs need has >become a human need; the extent to which, >therefore, the other person as a person has >become for him a need the extent to which he >in his inddividual existence is at the same time >a social being. The first positive annulment of >private property crudee communism is thus >merely a manifestation of the vileeness of >private property, which wants to set itself up >as the positive community system." >http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm >Indeed, the human subject is an ensemble of >social relations, cultural beings in the >anthropological sense of "culture". But the >sexual relationship is a natural social >relationship, the sexual instinct a social >instinct, and thus sexual relations are both >socially and naturally social. The sexual >relationship is a special exception to the >postmodernist correct idea that human >subjectivity and individuals are predominantly >socially or culturally constructed (maybe, ? >smile) Ciao, Comrade Charles Brown --- On Fri, >2/6/09, Disqus ><notifications-dqukn5y...@disqus.net> wrote: > >From: Disqus ><notifications-dqukn5y...@disqus.net> > Subject: >[politicalaffairs] Re: Political Affairs >Magazine - The Concept of " Aura" and >the Question of Art in Althusser, Benjamin and >Greenberg > To: cdb1...@prodigy.net > Date: >Friday, February 6, 2009, 3:12 AM > Gary Tedman >(unregistered) wrote, in response to bing: > > >hello, > > > > Althusser meant philosophical >humanism, which is basically > mainstream >bourgeois ideology, he distinguished it from > >humanitarianism, but there is a lot of humanism >in bourgeois > humanitarianism too (charity for >example). Yes, Marx said > that, and being a >'true humanist' is to go beyond > classical >humanism, as he did for example in his >criticism > of Feuerbach.. A classic humanist >belief would be of the > 'human spirit' or 'Man' >with a 'human > nature' (essence), 'born free' >and > 'responsible' for 'himself'. For Marx >the > human subject is an ensemble of social >relations (to be > brief). See Althusser's essay >"Marxism is not a > Humanism" in the book "For >Marx". > > > > > > Link to comment: > >http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/view/8042/1/359/#comment-5848873 > > _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
