I would like to disagree with one respondent, who wrote "this is
althusser's achilles heel, his
> positivism--there is no dividing science and philosophy--these divisions of
> knowledge are merely historical reflections of our current society and its
> god: the division of labor... ie, only in capitalism are their distinct
> knowledges such as religion, science, and philosophy..." In For Marx, he
equates science and philosophy, but in Reading Capital, he distinguishes
the two and, like Foucault, goes on to critique foundational bourgeois
philosophy and to argue for class struggle as the level of philosophy. I
could dig out the references if you like. In no case does he treat the
division between philosophy and science as an historical construct. That's
the great error of Gramsci and, I might add, the Frankfurt School.
Philip GOldstein
> > > Lukacs
> > aside, Marxism cannot be made into good philosophy. It lacks an
> > "existential" dimension (as in the late Foucault) and is premised upon
> the
> > materialist critique of philosophy.
>
> again i disagree, the "early" marx (to use althusser's dubious distinction)
> is "existential" to a fault (perhaps)... and marx is especially good
> philosophy if postone's interpretation is correct, but even if it isn't....
> marx is certainly more than a minor post-ricardian political economist!!!
>
>
> > Rather than calling Marx, or Foucault, a "historical relativist" (and I
> > note your own quotes here), I think its more accurate to call him -- them
> > -- radical historicists, and so, antifoundational: truth claims are
> > specific to partcicular groups, classes, or "communities" and their
> > institutional or non-discursive milieux.
>
> euphemize if you must, but the dangerous beast of "historical relativism"
> does not frighten me.
>
> > For the Marx of the Capitals, at
> > least, there is no Trans. standpoint. Thus Capital is written to, and
> for,
> > and from the standpoint of the proletariat.
>
> this is exactly the kind of contradiction that postone criticized
> horkheimer and adorno for... your second sentence here does state a
> transcendental standpoint: labor and the proletariat...
>
>
> >
> > Excuse the long response. Looking forward to discussing Postone,
> >
>
> no apologies necessary. it has been a most fruitful discussion...
>
> i look forward to furthering this discussion as well....
>
> yours,
>
> d.///
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> David J. Wiltsee
> Dept. of Economics
> University of Utah
> david.wiltsee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> WILTSEE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
althusser's achilles heel, his
> positivism--there is no dividing science and philosophy--these divisions of
> knowledge are merely historical reflections of our current society and its
> god: the division of labor... ie, only in capitalism are their distinct
> knowledges such as religion, science, and philosophy..." In For Marx, he
equates science and philosophy, but in Reading Capital, he distinguishes
the two and, like Foucault, goes on to critique foundational bourgeois
philosophy and to argue for class struggle as the level of philosophy. I
could dig out the references if you like. In no case does he treat the
division between philosophy and science as an historical construct. That's
the great error of Gramsci and, I might add, the Frankfurt School.
Philip GOldstein
> > > Lukacs
> > aside, Marxism cannot be made into good philosophy. It lacks an
> > "existential" dimension (as in the late Foucault) and is premised upon
> the
> > materialist critique of philosophy.
>
> again i disagree, the "early" marx (to use althusser's dubious distinction)
> is "existential" to a fault (perhaps)... and marx is especially good
> philosophy if postone's interpretation is correct, but even if it isn't....
> marx is certainly more than a minor post-ricardian political economist!!!
>
>
> > Rather than calling Marx, or Foucault, a "historical relativist" (and I
> > note your own quotes here), I think its more accurate to call him -- them
> > -- radical historicists, and so, antifoundational: truth claims are
> > specific to partcicular groups, classes, or "communities" and their
> > institutional or non-discursive milieux.
>
> euphemize if you must, but the dangerous beast of "historical relativism"
> does not frighten me.
>
> > For the Marx of the Capitals, at
> > least, there is no Trans. standpoint. Thus Capital is written to, and
> for,
> > and from the standpoint of the proletariat.
>
> this is exactly the kind of contradiction that postone criticized
> horkheimer and adorno for... your second sentence here does state a
> transcendental standpoint: labor and the proletariat...
>
>
> >
> > Excuse the long response. Looking forward to discussing Postone,
> >
>
> no apologies necessary. it has been a most fruitful discussion...
>
> i look forward to furthering this discussion as well....
>
> yours,
>
> d.///
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> David J. Wiltsee
> Dept. of Economics
> University of Utah
> david.wiltsee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> WILTSEE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>