Without the transcendental, there is no possibility of freedom.
On Feb 7, 10:55 am, nominal9 <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 -- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
