http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_alienation It has been very many years since I read Marx... I got through the Communist Manifesto easily enough and I plodded through Das Kapital very coscientiously and doggedly, as I remember.... but I did not get all that much out of it..... Anyway, the connectcion between Marx and his philosophical sounding board Hegel always intrigued me and still does.... I don't think, myself, that Marx ever really separated himself from Hegel... I view them both as being Idealists. Now I know that this doesn't seem to make sense, if you look at the "words" that Marx uses... especially his so-called "materialism". That "materialism" would tend to be identified with an objective reality.... but if you take a close look at Marx... what does his sense of "materialism" consist of (another one of those pesky rherorical questions) IMO all "materialism" means for Marx is the .... objectivisation (or lack thereof) of our essential nature's into the products of our manufacture... or something like that.
'Let us suppose that we had carried out production as human beings. Each of us would have in two ways affirmed himself and the other person. 1) In my production I would have objectified my individuality, its specific character, and therefore enjoyed not only an individual manifestation of my life during the activity, but also when looking at the object I would have the individual pleasure of knowing my personality to be objective, visible to the senses and hence a power beyond all doubt. 2) In your enjoyment or use of my product I would have the direct enjoyment both of being conscious of having satisfied a human need by my work, that is, of having objectified man’s essential nature, and of having thus created an object corresponding to the need of another man’s essential nature. ... Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential nature.'" (Comment on James Mill) Objectivising "essences"???? that's still classic Idealism as is ..."Our products would be so many mirrors in which we saw reflected our essential nature.'"... all echoes of Plato's "reality" as shodows on a wall of the "true" ideal forms. What that has to do with it is that Freedom or Emancipation or Liberty for truly Physical Human beings has "real" (as in actually material constraints)... Hegel, as an Idealist, never wanted to admit these "real" constraints and neither does Marx.(as an Idealist)... for all his "revolutionary" theorizing.... Marx is still actually looking for his moment of Ideal communing with God (or Human Nature) or becoming one with God (or the Universal Human Social Consciousness) through ultimate... freedom... (or whatever). In any case, Freedom or Liberty or Emancipation assumes a "transcendental" , dare I say a religious sense... Now, this may be alright for Idealists of different sorts, I don't begrudge them their opinions. But what about freedom for an actual Realist/Materialist along the lines of an Aristotle... or for a Nominalist, like B. Russel, et al... or even for Phenomenologists like Husserl or better yet Kant? nominal9 On Feb 6, 11:57 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > What is Freedom or Liberty, or Emancipation... and how does that all > work in an interactive "social" or even a more specific economic > group > setting? Indeed - I'm reminded that Anthony Flew, in answering "what > is courage?" simply wrote "this is" leaving the rest of his exam paper > blank. I believe we make a mistake if we try to establish such stuff > without working out how we intend to allow others into the decisions > and creating - and this is a very complex question involving what we > have been calling democracy. The trick would be a form of argument > more than chattering class dross and a system of planned evaluations > as matters progressed. It's my view we would not be focused on words, > but forms of some kind, especially in the leadership-followership > area. I have no doubt we need emancipation, but presumably not to my > whim or the next Mugabe. There is much we could learn from groupwork > here and the extent to which we remain ape in bids for leadership and > the rest. This stuff needs to get into our talking and feeling in > different ways than we are used to. > > On 5 Feb, 23:11, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Zizek said something somewhere about being able to talk without fear > > of chronic power relations. I think the dismal existential position > > is a combination of this fear and a kind of mock bravery in its face. > > We need some fellowship before we can speak thus. > > > On 5 Feb, 10:42, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > If you believe someone is hiding something from you and/or oneself and > > > you don't ask that person about it, you have to wait for a revelation. > > > Same applies to flowers in a four season area. > > > > On 5 Feb., 03:36, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > gabbers, is that what is meant by revelation? (along with faith of > > > > course.) > > > > > On Feb 4, 1:52 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Interesting perspective, very artsy indeed. The casual Christian bible > > > > > believer is taught that the beaten down Jesus on the cross is the > > > > > devine son, is me in another dimension, so to speak. > > > > > > On 4 Feb., 21:27, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > The 'beaten down' aspect comes from existentialism in general. This > > > > > > misaprehension denies us of the divine. > > > > > > > On Feb 4, 9:00 am, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > I would add that one does not need to know what human > > > > > > > emancipation is > > > > > > > before trying to create it, or perhaps better, "go for it". I > > > > > > > suspect > > > > > > > most humans are actually so beaten down that they do not imagine a > > > > > > > future as part of their present. > > > > > > > > On 4 Feb, 16:55, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Yes Neil, when the focus is on words, true wisdom is missed. > > > > > > > > Some do lean toward being practical, including analysis. Others > > > > > > > > towards doing a comparison with the past. And, there exist the > > > > > > > > empaths. We know all three and seldom know why we lean toward > > > > > > > > one over > > > > > > > > the other. > > > > > > > > > On Feb 3, 10:15 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > The answer is that Foucault couldn't reduce any anxiety and > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > Derrida has really only shown we should be less sure of more > > > > > > > > > or less > > > > > > > > > everything, which I do find reassuring. The warning in both > > > > > > > > > is about > > > > > > > > > totalising forms of thinking. My preference is for good old > > > > > > > > > American > > > > > > > > > pragmatism and practical scientific methods where we can > > > > > > > > > apply them. > > > > > > > > > Derrida can be read as asserting poetics and humour. There > > > > > > > > > is a long > > > > > > > > > history of aporia, which we might take as revelling in roads > > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > nowhere, as in the song, or as despair in Wittgenstein that > > > > > > > > > language > > > > > > > > > bewitches us in making us ask the same old questions, rather > > > > > > > > > than > > > > > > > > > devise new ones. > > > > > > > > > > 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?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
