Marx argues that not only is political emancipation insufficient to bring about human emancipation, it is in some sense also a barrier. Liberal rights and ideas of justice are premised on the idea that each of us needs protection from other human beings. Therefore liberal rights are rights of separation, designed to protect us from such perceived threats. Freedom on such a view, is freedom from interference. What this view overlooks is the possibility — for Marx, the fact — that real freedom is to be found positively in our relations with other people. It is to be found in human community, not in isolation. So insisting on a regime of rights encourages us to view each other in ways which undermine the possibility of the real freedom we may find in human emancipation. Now we should be clear that Marx does not oppose political emancipation, for he sees that liberalism is a great improvement on the systems of prejudice and discrimination which existed in the Germany of his day. Nevertheless, such politically emancipated liberalism must be transcended on the route to genuine human emancipation. Unfortunately, Marx never tells us what human emancipation is, although it is clear that it is closely related to the idea of non-alienated labour. This seems to have been managed in Star Trek NG!
On 4 Feb, 06:21, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > The American scholar Jackson had much to say about inaccuracies in > Heidegger, particularly his pompous and poor Greek.. The questions do > not spin off into miserable relativism, but a deeper question about > how we might better believe what we know - and my guess is this has to > do with social justice and a move towards getting pleasure in doing > things for others and comfort in this identity or moral core. The > qualification on these matters is breathing, as Vam well knows and > asserts. > > On 1 Feb, 03:52, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yeah, and when you get to where that road take you, > > be sure to pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE > > > dj > > > On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 11:09 AM, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hello Paul: > > > I am "diametrically opposed" epistemologically to the Phenomenalist > > > position. Nice to meet you, however.... > > > "Does Merleau-Ponty 'fill in the gaps' that Heidegger left?".... Blind > > > leading the Blind.... > > > " Do Foucault or Derrida give you a path out of modern anxiety? > > > ".....Follow the Yellow Brick Road..... > > > > nominal9 > > > > On Jan 30, 6:36 am, Paul Grieg <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> This is one of my favourite philosophy interviews: > > > >>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aaGk6S1qhz0&feature=related > > > >> Can any of you answer these questions: > > > >> Does Merleau-Ponty 'fill in the gaps' that Heidegger left? > > > >> Do Foucault or Derrida give you a path out of modern anxiety? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
