I'm in a rush right now, but the main inspirations for my perspective come from:
<http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/critique-hpr/intro.htm>Introduction to A Contribution to the Critique of Hegels Philosophy of Right, in Deutsch-Französische Jahrbücher, February, 1844. Thesis 3 of <http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/index.htm>Theses on Feuerbach, 1845 <http://www.autodidactproject.org/quote/marxsci1.html>"Private Property and Communism" from the Economic-Philosophical Manuscripts<http://www.autodidactproject.org/quote/marxsci1.html> of Karl Marx (1844) Marx of course made key statements on praxis from the doctoral dissertation & Epicurean notebooks of 1841 through The German Ideology and Theses on Feuerbach (1945). At 01:57 PM 4/14/2010, c b wrote: >On 4/14/10, Ralph Dumain <[email protected]> wrote: > > Syntactic ambiguity or ineptitude on my part. I meant: > > > > . . . nor is attempting to deny Marx's materialism necessary in > > order to develop the concept of praxis. > >^^^^^^^ >CB: Yes. > >Do you derive "praxis" from Marx's phrase "practical-critical >activity" in the first Thesis on Feuerbach ? > > >"The chief defect of all hitherto existing materialism that of >Feuerbach included is that the thing, reality, sensuousness, is >conceived only in the form of the object or of contemplation, but not >as sensuous human activity, practice, not subjectively. Hence, in >contradistinction to materialism, the active side was developed >abstractly by idealism which, of course, does not know real, >sensuous activity as such. > >Feuerbach wants sensuous objects, really distinct from the thought >objects, but he does not conceive human activity itself as objective >activity. Hence, in The Essence of Christianity, he regards the >theoretical attitude as the only genuinely human attitude, while >practice is conceived and fixed only in its dirty-judaical >manifestation. Hence he does not grasp the significance of >revolutionary, of practical-critical, activity. " > > > > > > >^^^^^^^ > > > > > > At 01:40 PM 4/14/2010, c b wrote: > > >It's not necessary to develop the concept of praxis ? > > > > > > > > >On 4/14/10, Ralph Dumain <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Here is where I would agree with Hillel-Rubin as against Robinson, > > > > Dunayevskaya, and many others. Trying to play off Marx's advocacy of > > > > "naturalism" as a transcendence of both idealism and materialism is > > > > the bogus ploy here. But note please that praxis philosophers do not > > > > all go for this gambit, nor is it necessary to develop the > > > concept of praxis. > > > > > > > > See also my review: > > > > > > > > <http://www.autodidactproject.org/my/ruben-dh-2.html>Review of > > > > David-Hillel Rubin, > > > > <http://www.autodidactproject.org/my/ruben-dh-2.html>Marxism and > > > > Materialism: A Study in Marxist Theory of Knowledge > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Marxism-Thaxis mailing list > > [email protected] > > To change your options or unsubscribe go to: > > http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis > > > >_______________________________________________ >Marxism-Thaxis mailing list >[email protected] >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
