Was Marx anti-philosophy?

[Milk Sheikh]

I know he was against idealism, but was he influenced by anything other than dialectical materialism?

[mikelepore]

How could someone be anti-philosophy? Philosophy (the Greek word for "love of wisdom") is an analysis of ideas in search of a better understanding. It's what everyone wants.

[Thirsty Crow]

I know he was against idealism, but was he influenced by anything other than dialectical materialism?

Marx could not have been influenced by dialectical materialism since DM, as a body of organized methodological principles (i.e. an epistemology) which produces knowledge of the world, was systematized well after Marx's working life was over.
Though, I'm not really sure who was the first to turn the dialectic method into Dialectical Materialism, Engels or maybe Plekhanov or Kautsky.

And Marx certainly was "anti-philosophy" in the sense of being opposed to mere speculation on the nature of man's world. The last of the theses on Feurebach testifies to this orientation, which in fact represents a scathing critique of the philosophy as ideology.
But on the other hand, Das Kapital testifies to something else, and that is the systematic character of Marx's inquiry into the capitalist mode of production. In this sense, if we conceive philosophy as a systematic mental practice which would in fact rest upon empirically observable data, Marx's project is not "anti-philosophical".

It is just a matter of perspective, really.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mike:


How could someone be anti-philosophy? Philosophy (the Greek word for "love of wisdom") is an analysis of ideas in search of a better understanding. It's what everyone wants.

Since Ancient Greek times, 'philosophy' has come to mean much more than this -- traditionally it relates to an esoteric form of 'wisdom'/'knowledge', pertaining to a hidden world underlying appearances that is more real than the world we see around us, and which is accessible to thought alone.

In view of this, it's not hard to see why Marx was an anti-philosopher. Anyone who reads The German Ideology, The Poverty of Philosophy and The Holy Family can come to no other conclusion.

I'll add some choice quotes later.

[ChrisK]

I know he was against idealism, but was he influenced by anything other than dialectical materialism?

Yes, he rejected philosophy in favor of scientific methods. This is clear based on his clear belief that we cannot understand society or nature through thought alone. He required that we use observed data to understand society, not random abstractions about how things are without ever looking at data.

[RadioRaheem84]

I don't blame him though. I am starting to be pretty anti-philosophical myself. I cannot stand idealism or metaphysics anymore. I didn't use to be this way but the more Marx I read the more of a materialist I became. So yeah he was a bit anti-philosophy.

For instance, for the longest time I used to be an idealist liberal and used to debate a Christian friend of mine who was a major philosophy buff. We would jabber on for hours over the phone about philosophy, not taking any material conditions into account, historical analysis, nothing. We thought that everything could be understood through a philosophical outlook, a presupposition or the most logically sounding rationale. NO facts.


I mean we shared a whole host of misgivings about race, history, culture, nationalities, war, etc. They were awful and much of it due to having this grand praise for past philosophers and valuating their different ideals.

Seriously, thank god for Marx for pointing out the absurdity of idealism.

[Dave B]

As a personal opinion somewhat hotly contested in the SPGB a the moment

I think their turn to ‘pure materialism’ was a result them reading Stirner’s "The Ego and Its Own" in November 1844. With its scathing criticism of the ‘good idea’ of idealism; and that all actions and ideas should be solely focused on the fulfilment of material and real self-interest of the individual or egotism, albeit of the working class.

The German Ideology was written to realign or adjust their former Fuerbachian humanist position.

Frederick Engels Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy;Foreword




Karl Marx relates how the two of us in Brussels in the year 1845 set about: "to work out in common the opposition of our view" — the materialist conception of history which was elaborated mainly by Marx — to the ideological view of German philosophy, in fact, to settle accounts with our erstwhile philosophical conscience. The resolve was carried out in the form of a criticism of post-Hegelian philosophy. ………..To Feuerbach, who after all in many respects forms an intermediate link between Hegelian philosophy and our conception, we never returned.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/foreword.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/ludwig-feuerbach/foreword.htm)

Feuerbach believed, putting it somewhat retrospectively and anachronistically, that humans had a natural social instinct for communism or human essence. That he deduced, from amongst other things, an analysis of Early Christianity, that he considered to be an escapist, opium like fantasy, of frustrated natural primitive communist instincts "projected" into a ‘heaven of abstraction’; as in his "Essence of Christianity".

Like neurotic primitive communists, and a natural animal stuck in a cage of unnatural private property relations.

And in unravelling or psychoanalysing it he had found a material basis or cause for Early Christian ideology or ‘brought it down to earth’ eg

To Ludwig Feuerbach In Bruckberg Paris, August 11 1844




but I am glad to have an opportunity of assuring you of the great respect and — if I may use the word — love, which I feel for you. Your Philosophie der Zukunft, and your Wesen des Glaubens, in spite of their small size, are certainly of greater weight than the whole of contemporary German literature put together.

In these writings you have provided — I don't know whether intentionally — a philosophical basis for socialism and the Communists have immediately understood them in this way. The unity of man with man, which is based on the real differences between men, the concept of the human species brought down from the heaven of abstraction to the real earth, what is this but the concept of society!

Two translations of your Wesen des Christenthums (http://www.revleft.com/reference/archive/feuerbach/works/essence/index.htm), one in English and one in French, are in preparation and almost ready for printing. The first will be published in Manchester (Engels has been supervising it)...


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_08_11.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_08_11.htm)

And as in;

Karl Marx Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

Private Property and Communism





3) Communism as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to himself as a social (i.e., human) being – a return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development.

This communism, as fully developed naturalism, equals humanism, and as fully developed humanism equals naturalism; it is the genuine resolution of the conflict between man and nature and between man and man – the true resolution of the strife between existence and essence, between objectification and self-confirmation, between freedom and necessity, between the individual and the species. Communism is the riddle of history solved, and it knows itself to be this solution



http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm)

Stirner trashed the idea as non materialistic idealism and Marx and Engels abandoned the Feuerbach position even though the idea would appear to have been just 30 years ahead of his time.

Darwin, C. R. 1871. The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. London: John Murray. Volume 1. 1st edition




The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable—namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts,5 would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed, or nearly as well developed, as in man. For, firstly, the social instincts lead an animal to take pleasure in the society of its fellows, to feel a certain amount of sympathy with them, and to perform various services for them. The services may be of a definite and evidently instinctive nature; or there may be only a wish and readiness, as with most of the higher social animals, to aid their fellows in certain general ways.


But these feelings and services are by no means extended to all the individuals of the same species, only to those of the same association. Secondly, as soon as the mental faculties had become highly developed, images of all past actions and motives would be incessantly passing through the brain of each individual; and that feeling of dissatisfaction which invariably results, as we shall hereafter see, from any unsatisfied instinct, would arise, as often as it was perceived that the enduring and always present social instinct had yielded to some other instinct, at the time stronger, but neither enduring in its nature, nor leaving behind it a very vivid impression.

It is clear that many instinctive desires, such as that of hunger, are in their nature of short duration; and after being satisfied are not readily or vividly recalled. Thirdly, after the power of language had been acquired and the wishes of the members of the same community could be distinctly expressed, the common opinion how each member ought to act for the public good, would naturally become to a large extent the guide to action.

But the social instincts would still give the impulse to act for the good of the community, this impulse being strengthened, directed, and sometimes even deflected by public opinion, the power of which rests, as we shall presently see, on instinctive sympathy. Lastly, habit in the individual would ultimately play a very important part in guiding the conduct of each member; for the social instincts and impulses, like all other instincts, would be greatly strengthened by habit, as would obedience to the wishes and judgment of the community. These several subordinate propositions must now be discussed; and some of them at considerable length.

5 Sir B. Brodie, after observing that man is a social animal ('Psychological Enquiries,' 1854, p. 192), asks the pregnant question, "ought not this to settle the disputed question as to the existence of a moral sense?" Similar ideas have probably occurred to many persons, as they did long ago to Marcus Aurelius. Mr. J. S. Mill speaks, in his celebrated work, 'Utilitarianism,' (1864, p. 46), of the social feelings as a "powerful natural sentiment," and as "the natural basis of sentiment for utilitarian morality;" but on the previous page he says, "if, as is my own belief, the moral feelings are not innate, but acquired, they are not for that reason less natural." It is with hesitation that I venture to differ from so profound a thinker, but it can hardly be disputed that the social feelings are instinctive or innate in the lower animals; and why should they not be so in man? Mr. Bain (see, for instance, 'The Emotions and the Will,' 1865, p. 481) and others believe that the moral sense is acquired by each individual during his lifetime. On the general theory of evolution this is at least extremely improbable.



http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/contentblock?hitpage=1&viewtype=text&basepage=1&itemID=F937 (http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/contentblock?hitpage=1&viewtype=text&basepage=1&itemID=F937)

Engels later appeared to accept the social instinct theory;

Engels to Lavrov 12 November 1875




6) On the other hand I cannot agree with you that the war of every man against every man was the first phase of human development. In my opinion the social instinct was one of the most essential levers in the development of man from the ape. The first men must have lived gregariously and so far back as we can see we find that this was the case.


http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_11_12.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/letters/75_11_12.htm)

and the connection of communism to the precepts of Early Christianity;

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894/early-christianity/index.htm)

I think the title of Karl’s The Poverty of Philosophy was more of a sarcastic inversion of Proudhon’s Philosophy of Poverty.

[4 Leaf Clover]

I would like to say that idealism and philosophy are not same things. Anyways , it's arguable if Marx was anti-philosophy. The materialist thought , no matter how non-abstract and non-metaphysical it is , it still tries to respond to original question of existence

[ZeroNowhere]

"Feuerbach resolves the religious essence into the human essence. But the human essence is no abstraction inherent in each single individual. In its reality it is the ensemble of the social relations."

To be honest, this is more or less the understanding employed in the early manuscripts, as well as, it would seem, that letter to Feuerbach. Capitalism is the alienation of man from his own social relations, which take the form of things and come to stand over him, as does Feuerbach's 'human essence' in the form of God. I don't think that there was any major shift here between the manuscripts and 'The German Ideology', or indeed his later work in 'The Class Struggles in France', where he referred to the resumption by the people of their own social life. In the Grundrisse, he was also still stressing how, under capitalism, the community stands as something independent from and above the individual as isolated commodity seller, and therefore communism as the control by men of their own society, which under capitalism takes the forms of things, of value and capital (value in motion), which stand over the related humans themselves.

[Dave B]

But that quote comes from Spring of 1845, which was their abandoned post Fuerbachian position

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/theses.htm)


there is a reasonable pro Stirner review of it below even if I think Stirner was a shit;

http://www.nonserviam.com/egoistarchive/stirner/articles/gordon.html (http://www.nonserviam.com/egoistarchive/stirner/articles/gordon.html)

Engels had got a hold of it in November 1844;
Letters of Marx and Engels 1844 Letter from Engels to Marx

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_11_19.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/letters/44_11_19.htm)

Stirner’s book was at the time devastating piss take of the Fuerbachian position, even if it then collapses once you plug back in Darwin’s materialistic social instinct.

[ZeroNowhere]

I am perfectly aware that the Theses on Feuerbach originate from 1845, what I was saying was that this conception is essentially the same found within the early manuscripts. I think that Colletti has already refuted the idea that Marx was working in his early works with some sort of Feuerbachian anthropology which he later transcended in favour of sociology.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Ok, here are a few of Marx's negative comments on Philosophy.

Philosophy is based on distorted languge:


"One of the most difficult tasks confronting philosophers is to descend from the world of thought to the actual world. Language is the immediate actuality of thought. Just as philosophers have given thought an independent existence, so they were bound to make language into an independent realm. This is the secret of philosophical language, in which thoughts in the form of words have their own content. The problem of descending from the world of thoughts to the actual world is turned into the problem of descending from language to life.

"We have shown that thoughts and ideas acquire an independent existence in consequence of the personal circumstances and relations of individuals acquiring independent existence. We have shown that exclusive, systematic occupation with these thoughts on the part of ideologists and philosophers, and hence the systematisation of these thoughts, is a consequence of division of labour, and that, in particular, German philosophy is a consequence of German petty-bourgeois conditions. The philosophers have only to dissolve their language into the ordinary language, from which it is abstracted, in order to recognise it, as the distorted language of the actual world, and to realise that neither thoughts nor language in themselves form a realm of their own, that they are only manifestations of actual life." [Marx and Engels (1970) The Geramn Ideology, p.118. Bold emphases added.]

We must "leave Philosophy aside" since it is akin to Onanism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/onanism):


"One has to “leave philosophy aside” (Wigand, p. 187, cf. Hess, Die letzten Philosophen, p. 8), one has to leap out of it and devote oneself like an ordinary man to the study of actuality, for which there exists also an enormous amount of literary material, unknown, of course, to the philosophers. When, after that, one again encounters people like Krummacher or “Stirner”, one finds that one has long ago left them “behind” and below. Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one another as onanism and sexual love." Collected Works, Volume 5, p.236.

Philosophy is based on empty abstractions


"The mystery of critical presentation…is the mystery of speculative, of Hegelian construction….

"If from real apples, pears, strawberries and almonds I form the general idea 'Fruit', if I go further and imagine that my abstract idea 'Fruit', derived from real fruit, is an entity existing outside me, is indeed the true essence of the pear, the apple, etc., then -- in the language of speculative philosophy –- I am declaring that 'Fruit' is the 'Substance' of the pear, the apple, the almond, etc. I am saying, therefore, that to be an apple is not essential to the apple; that what is essential to these things is not their real existence, perceptible to the senses, but the essence that I have abstracted from them and then foisted on them, the essence of my idea -– 'Fruit'…. Particular real fruits are no more than semblances whose true essence is 'the substance' -– 'Fruit'….

"Having reduced the different real fruits to the one 'fruit' of abstraction -– 'the Fruit', speculation must, in order to attain some semblance of real content, try somehow to find its way back from 'the Fruit', from the Substance to the diverse, ordinary real fruits, the pear, the apple, the almond etc. It is as hard to produce real fruits from the abstract idea 'the Fruit' as it is easy to produce this abstract idea from real fruits. Indeed, it is impossible to arrive at the opposite of an abstraction without relinquishing the abstraction….

"The main interest for the speculative philosopher is therefore to produce the existence of the real ordinary fruits and to say in some mysterious way that there are apples, pears, almonds and raisins. But the apples, pears, almonds and raisins that we rediscover in the speculative world are nothing but semblances of apples, semblances of pears, semblances of almonds and semblances of raisins, for they are moments in the life of 'the Fruit', this abstract creation of the mind, and therefore themselves abstract creations of the mind…. When you return from the abstraction, the supernatural creation of the mind, 'the Fruit', to real natural fruits, you give on the contrary the natural fruits a supernatural significance and transform them into sheer abstractions. Your main interest is then to point out the unity of 'the Fruit' in all the manifestations of its life…that is, to show the mystical interconnection between these fruits, how in each of them 'the Fruit' realizes itself by degrees and necessarily progresses, for instance, from its existence as a raisin to its existence as an almond. Hence the value of the ordinary fruits no longer consists in their natural qualities, but in their speculative quality, which gives each of them a definite place in the life-process of 'the Absolute Fruit'.

"The ordinary man does not think he is saying anything extraordinary when he states that there are apples and pears. But when the philosopher expresses their existence in the speculative way he says something extraordinary. He performs a miracle by producing the real natural objects, the apple, the pear, etc., out of the unreal creation of the mind 'the Fruit'….

"It goes without saying that the speculative philosopher accomplishes this continuous creation only by presenting universally known qualities of the apple, the pear, etc., which exist in reality, as determining features invented by him, by giving the names of the real things to what abstract reason alone can create, to abstract formulas of reason, finally, by declaring his own activity, by which he passes from the idea of an apple to the idea of a pear, to be the self-activity of the Absolute Subject, 'the Fruit.'

"In the speculative way of speaking, this operation is called comprehending Substance as Subject, as an inner process, as an Absolute Person, and this comprehension constitutes the essential character of Hegel's method." [Marx and Engels (1975) The Holy Family, pp.72-75.]


"Is it surprising that everything, in the final abstraction…presents itself as a logical category? Is it surprising that, if you let drop little by little all that constitutes the individuality of a house, leaving out first of all the materials of which it is composed, then the form that distinguishes it, you end up with nothing but a body; that if you leave out of account the limits of this body, you soon have nothing but a space -– that if, finally, you leave out of account the dimensions of this space, there is absolutely nothing left but pure quantity, the logical category? If we abstract thus from every subject all the alleged accidents, animate or inanimate, men or things, we are right in saying that in the final abstraction the only substance left is the logical categories. Thus the metaphysicians, who in making these abstractions, think they are making analyses, and who, the more they detach themselves from things, imagine themselves to be getting all the nearer to the point of penetrating to their core…." [Marx (1978) The Poverty of Philosophy, p.99.]

And, as Hegel noted, all traditional philosophy is idealism:


"Every philosophy is essentially an idealism or at least has idealism for its principle, and the question then is only how far this principle is carried out." [Hegel (1999) The Science of Logic, pp.154-55; § 316.]

I have explained in detail why this is so, here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1924027&postcount=5

[RadioRaheem84]

Then Hegel and Marx are both correct. Thank you.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Marx certainly was, and sure Hegel managed to write a few correct things now and then, but they were surrounded by a vast ocean of confusion and error.

[blake 3:17]

Those Onanists never clean up after themselves.

I think the specific value of philosophy is in its speculative nature.


I think that Colletti has already refuted the idea that Marx was working in his early works with some sort of Feuerbachian anthropology which he later transcended in favour of sociology. ???


For instance, for the longest time I used to be an idealist liberal and used to debate a Christian friend of mine who was a major philosophy buff. We would jabber on for hours over the phone about philosophy, not taking any material conditions into account, historical analysis, nothing. We thought that everything could be understood through a philosophical outlook, a presupposition or the most logically sounding rationale. NO facts.


What's wrong with that? It sounds like some healthy conversation. Facts are important, especially true ones.:D

I think it's fine to describe Marx as an anti-philosopher -- that doesn't mean he was opposed to philosophical queries. I think it's unhealthy to oppose ideas on the basis that they weren't Marx's (or Paul's or whomever's). That's just silly dogmatism.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blake:


I think the specific value of philosophy is in its speculative nature.

But, after 2500 years of aimless speculation, philosophers have absolutely no results to show for all that wasted effort. In fact, they would have been far better occupied watching their toe-nails grow for all the good they have done..

[blake 3:17]

RL,

I did the PI with Ian Hacking. In my proletarian capacities, I cut toe nails. They're actually fairly interesting in their own ways. And I don't see anything wrong with Onanism.

ciao

b317

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blake:


I did the PI with Ian Hacking. In my proletarian capacities, I cut toe nails. They're actually fairly interesting in their own ways. And I don't see anything wrong with Onanism.

You might find toe-nails interesting, but I doubt those philosophers would.

And who said there was anything wrong per se with Onanism? The point is, as Marx says:


Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one another as onanism and sexual love.

That is because philosophy does not study the actual world.

[Sosa]

Blake:



But, after 2500 years of aimless speculation, philosophers have absolutely no results to show for all that wasted effort. In fact, they would have been far better occupied watching their toe-nails grow for all the good they have done..

this is the stupidest shit I have ever heard. I wouldn't consider Aristotle laying down the foundation of logic and natural science as "aimless" nor wasted effort.

[jsov]

I don't know that I'd say Marx was "anti-Philosophy." I would say that Marx was very practical.

More to the point, Marxists tend to stress praxis. What good is philosophy if it does nothing to help the human condition? This is one reason I find the Frankfurt School so utterly worthless. Marcuse could wax philosophy and word play with the best of them (and I admit that One Dimensional Man was a good read) but he and his Frankfurt School pals do nothing to further practical socialism. I'll take the RAF all day over Marcuse.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sosa:


this is the stupidest shit I have ever heard.

May I suggest you read your own posts then?:lol:


I wouldn't consider Aristotle laying down the foundation of logic and natural science as "aimless" nor wasted effort.

Logic and the sciences are not part of philosophy.

[Thirsty Crow]

Logic and the sciences are not part of philosophy.
How about some intellectual honesty, eh?
Historically speaking, logic is directly tied to the practice of philosophy. It has been an integral part of it.
Just as science is based on philosophical enquiry, that is, on various epistemologies. Or would you argue that contemporary philosophy of science is a ruling class mystification?

[Kiev Communard]

He was against philosophy as an abstract thinking that ignores the real foundations of human life and pays more attention to ideological pecularities than to real social and economic processes. In that sense Marx was very much "anti-philosopher", and seeing how some "post-Marxist" theoretical currents degenerated when taking the over-intellectualist positions one has to agree with him on that thing.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Menocchio:


How about some intellectual honesty, eh?

Indeed, and I recommend you adopt some forthwith.


Historically speaking, logic is directly tied to the practice of philosophy. It has been an integral part of it.

It is certainly used by philosophers and was invented by one (Aristotle) but that does not make it part of Philsopshy -- any more than meterology is (which was also studied by Aristotle), or that pens (also used by philosophers) are.


Just as science is based on philosophical enquiry, that is, on various epistemologies.

As science progressed, it diverged from philosophy. They are now totally separate.

Moreover, science is not only highly useful it has achieved impressive, if not dazzling, results.

Philosophy has achieved nothing.


Or would you argue that contemporary philosophy of science is a ruling class mystification?

In fact, much (if not all) of this is part of scientific theory itself.

[Thirsty Crow]

Menocchio:
It is certainly used by philosophers and was invented by one (Aristotle) but that does not make it part of Philsopshy "Historically speaking" and "...has been...". How did you manage to miss these markers?




As science progressed, it diverged from philosophy. They are now totally separate.Only insofar as a science takes its methodology for granted. Which is the case with practical science, so you are more than half right, but for example, it is not so when it comes to social sciences. So either you should deny the right of these to call themselves "sciences". or deny your own generalization.


Moreover, science is not only highly useful it has achieved impressive, if not dazzling, results.

Philosophy has achieved nothing.No, again historically speaking, philosophy has achieved something truly remarkable - the existence and practical implementation of science itself.
Sorry if this seems like a sophistry of sorts, but your rabid attacks are completely one-sided and disregard the important interaction between metaphysical systems and different epistemologies/philosophical methods. Exactly this interaction was pretty much active in the formation of useful sciences as we know them today (of course, that is not to say that this was the only factor).




In fact, much (if not all) of this is part of scientific theory itself.
Yes, I agree. Philosophy has been "transformed" into theory of science. That is also one of its achievements.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Menocchio:


"Historically speaking" and "...has been...". How did you manage to miss these markers?

Perhaps because they aren't 'markers'.


Only insofar as a science takes its methodology for granted. Which is the case with practical science, so you are more than half right, but for example, it is not so when it comes to social sciences. So either you should deny the right of these to call themselves "sciences". or deny your own generalization.

You will have to be far more clear if you want to make yourself understood.


No, again historically speaking, philosophy has achieved something truly remarkable - the existence and practical implementation of science itself.

But that has nothing to do with philosophy.


Sorry if this seems like a sophistry of sorts, but your rabid attacks are completely one-sided and disregard the important interaction between metaphysical systems and different epistemologies/philosophical methods. Exactly this interaction was pretty much active in the formation of useful sciences as we know them today (of course, that is not to say that this was the only factor).

Philosophy has been "transformed" into theory of science. That is also one of its achievements.

If my posts are 'rabid', then yours represent the ramblings of a feeble mind.

Let me know when you want to exchange ideas -- if you have any -- or just insults.

[Thirsty Crow]

But that has nothing to do with philosophy.

Then kindly inform me, with what does that have something to do?
Cause, you know, it seems that you are blatantly arrogant in that you dismiss an argument without providing a concrete argument of your own. Major fault.


You will have to be far more clear if you want to make yourself understood.
For example, acoustics, as an integral part of the science of physics, does not necessarily have to investigate its underlying epistemology and/or method of inquiry in order that its results be useful. If social sciences, such as sociology for example, would not investigate these two aspects, the conclusions of an empirically based investigation would come into question since the observable data is utterly "dependant" on the framework of its explanation.

Does that make it more clear?

[ChrisK]

Then kindly inform me, with what does that have something to do?
Cause, you know, it seems that you are blatantly arrogant in that you dismiss an argument without providing a concrete argument of your own. Major fault.

This probably has to do something with science predating philosophy by, oh, only a few thousand years. Astronomy, building the pyramids, etc.

[Thirsty Crow]

This probably has to do something with science predating philosophy by, oh, only a few thousand years. Astronomy, building the pyramids, etc.

If by "philosophy" you mean "metaphysical systems", than you're wrong.

[ChrisK]

If by "philosophy" you mean "metaphysical systems", than you're wrong.

No, by "philosophy" I mean the academic study that was started by Thales. Math and astronomy both predate him by an extremely long time.

[Thirsty Crow]

No, by "philosophy" I mean the academic study that was started by Thales. Math and astronomy both predate him by an extremely long time.

Okay then. This was the kind of answer I'm looking for, although yours is very, very brief. So I'd like further explanation since, to quote Rosa, you will have to be more clear - that is, more specific - if you want to be properly understood.

[ChrisK]

Okay then. This was the kind of answer I'm looking for, although yours is very, very brief. So I'd like further explanation since, to quote Rosa, you will have to be more clear - that is, more specific - if you want to be properly understood.

On which counts? The history of science or the history of philosophy?

[mikelepore]

Mike:


How could someone be anti-philosophy? Philosophy (the Greek word for "love of wisdom") is an analysis of ideas in search of a better understanding. It's what everyone wants.

Since Ancient Greek times, 'philosophy' has come to mean much more than this -- traditionally it relates to an esoteric form of 'wisdom'/'knowledge', pertaining to a hidden world underlying appearances that is more real than the world we see around us, and which is accessible to thought alone.

Not all philosophers have been like Plato, Spinoza, etc. Not all philosophers have believed that the truth is disclosed by thought alone. That was one side, and it has always clashed with the other side. There were others who emphasized experience and interaction. Marx took an already occuring debate between rationalists and empiricists, and shifted it to another level, where humanity is said to be recreating itself through practice.


In view of this, it's not hard to see why Marx was an anti-philosopher. Anyone who reads The German Ideology, The Poverty of Philosophy and The Holy Family can come to no other conclusion.

What Marx thought he was doing wasn't necessarily what he was really doing. He claimed to be performing analysis without moral sentimentality, and yet many of his comments are moral judgments. He claimed to be merely recognizing social changes that were already underway, and not making prescriptions, but then many of his comments are prescriptions. Here too, he declared his aim to scrap philosophy, after which he went on to generate more philosophy.

In 'The German Ideology' he wrote: "While, in ordinary life, every shopkeeper is very well able to distinguish between what somebody professes to be and what he really is, our historians have not yet won even this trivial insight. They take every epoch at its word, and believe that everything it says and imagines about itself is true."

Likewise, Marx and his successors have not always been able to correctly describe their own work.

[Dave B]

I think Feuerbach got the difference between science and philosophy correct eg

Sidney Hook paraphrasing Feuerbach well enough I think;




But in science as distinct from philosophy this opposition between sense-perception and thought (in modern terminology sense data and hypothesis) is not unmediated. That is to say, scientific thought even though it must transcend sense-perception takes its point of departure from it and returns to it somewhere in the process of scientific proof.



So science may observe apples dropping form trees, then it comes up with an idea about invisible forces operating through empty space. But the whole point is to make use of it in the real world.

Unlike wondering whether or not a falling tree in a wood makes a noise if there is no one there to hear it etc.

Also scientists are not to bothered initially if the scientific ‘idea’ eg gravity is ultimately ‘true’ or even the theory and laws etc are. As long as it works, is useful and predict stuff and avoid the tedium of trail and error, is all that matters for the moment.

In fact they hope and believe that the ‘idea’ theory and laws etc are not ‘ultimately true’ as that gives them something else to look at and ‘scientific objects’ ie the ideas can be the subject of scientific observation themselves.

Newton himself thought his theory was crazy re invisible forces operating through nothing, how one object knew the other was there and how fast it operated.

Eg if you suddenly removed the sun how long would it take before the earth started to move in a ‘straight line’ etc.

It turned out the earth was moving in a straight line all along and it was the curvature of space, and gravity was an illusion. It didn’t stop Newtons 'incomplete' theory being useful however.


Scientist also use things like ‘imaginary numbers’ that as the name suggests they know are not ‘real’.

The debate rages as to their meaning, for some.

Having said that I think that with new developments in theoretical physics etc ‘philosophy’ may be able to make a practical contribution.

[ChrisK]

Not all philosophers have been like Plato, Spinoza, etc. Not all philosophers have believed that the truth is disclosed by thought alone. That was one side, and it has always clashed with the other side. There were others who emphasized experience and interaction. Marx took an already occuring debate between rationalists and empiricists, and shifted it to another level, where humanity is said to be recreating itself through practice.

As you said people aren't good at saying what they are actually doing. Empricists claim that experience and interaction are of importance, but they come to this conclusion through thought alone. A truth without experience.

[∞]

I think he took the same view Einstein had brought up about philosophy. That philosophy is the mother to Science, though we should not laugh at her nakedness instead pursue her interests through science. I mean there was a time where philosophy was the knowledge of all things even regarding science and mathematics. Now it stands on different poles with those very things. Now any crack-pot pseudo intellectual halfwit can call him/herself "A philosopher" (ehemmm Ayn Rand, Anton Lavey, etc.)

Marx's view was probably one that would encourage physics after ontology, and psychology after ethics. Just postulating everything in abstraction will never get you an answer.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Menocchio


Then kindly inform me, with what does that have something to do?

May I recommend you get hold of a copy of the following:

Conner, C. (2005), A People's History Of Science. Miners, Midwives And "Low Mechanicks" (Nation Books).

There you will see that science was invented by ordinary working people, not by the empty speculations of work-shy philosophers.

Moreover, ordinary human beings were reasoning long before Aristotle was a lad.


Cause, you know, it seems that you are blatantly arrogant in that you dismiss an argument without providing a concrete argument of your own. Major fault.

Well, if you have a look at the vast majority of my posts (that are in answer to those who do not begin with a torrent of abuse of the sort you produced) you will see I always give reasons for the things I say.


For example, acoustics, as an integral part of the science of physics, does not necessarily have to investigate its underlying epistemology and/or method of inquiry in order that its results be useful. If social sciences, such as sociology for example, would not investigate these two aspects, the conclusions of an empirically based investigation would come into question since the observable data is utterly "dependant" on the framework of its explanation.

Indeed, but I think you are confusing debates about methodology with that empty and useless discipline sometimes called 'epistemology'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Mike:


Not all philosophers have been like Plato, Spinoza, etc. Not all philosophers have believed that the truth is disclosed by thought alone. That was one side, and it has always clashed with the other side. There were others who emphasized experience and interaction. Marx took an already occuring debate between rationalists and empiricists, and shifted it to another level, where humanity is said to be recreating itself through practice.

Well, I'd like you to list half a dozen philosophers who aren't as I described them.

Without breaking into a sweat, I can list at least fifty who are.


There were others who emphasized experience and interaction.

But, what they concluded (about 'experience') was based on thought alone -- and that's true even of the likes of Locke, Hume and Mill. They indulged in a priori epistemology.


Marx took an already occuring debate between rationalists and empiricists, and shifted it to another level, where humanity is said to be recreating itself through practice.

In fact, he did what he said above: he left "Philosophy aside".


What Marx thought he was doing wasn't necessarily what he was really doing. He claimed to be performing analysis without moral sentimentality, and yet many of his comments are moral judgments. He claimed to be merely recognizing social changes that were already underway, and not making prescriptions, but then many of his comments are prescriptions. Here too, he declared his aim to scrap philosophy, after which he went on to generate more philosophy.

Others have pointed this out, but they have been hard-pressed to give clear examples.

Anyway, what has this got to do with "leaving philosophy behind"?

You reply as follows:


Here too, he declared his aim to scrap philosophy, after which he went on to generate more philosophy.

In 'The German Ideology' he wrote: "While, in ordinary life, every shopkeeper is very well able to distinguish between what somebody professes to be and what he really is, our historians have not yet won even this trivial insight. They take every epoch at its word, and believe that everything it says and imagines about itself is true."

Likewise, Marx and his successors have not always been able to correctly describe their own work.

If you read my 'anti-philosophy' posts, you will see that I too have to 'get my hands dirty', as it were, all the time. This is called an 'immanent critique' -- whereby we use philosophy in order to hasten its demise.

I employ this method to show how empty its theses are. But this does not imply I am 'doing philosophy', any more than it implies, for example, that a doctor who uses a virus to attack another virus is spreading disease.

Now, Marx did not have to hand the sophisticated critical tools that we have today (thanks to Analytic Philosophy). Hence, Marx tended to stumble where today we can walk straight.

But, he still made major strides in the right direction -- in order to "leave behind" this empty ruling-class discipline, philosophy.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blackened Marxist:


I think he took the same view Einstein had brought up about philosophy. That philosophy is the mother to Science, though we should not laugh at her nakedness instead pursue her interests through science. I mean there was a time where philosophy was the knowledge of all things even regarding science and mathematics. Now it stands on different poles with those very things. Now any crack-pot pseudo intellectual halfwit can call him/herself "A philosopher" (ehemmm Ayn Rand, Anton Lavey, etc.)

Marx's view was probably one that would encourage physics after ontology, and psychology after ethics. Just postulating everything in abstraction will never get you an answer.

In fact, as my last but one post argued, science and mathematics long pre-dated philosophy, and were invented by ordinary working people.

Philosophy only succeeded in mystifying both.

[L.A.P.]

I would like to say that idealism and philosophy are not same things. Anyways , it's arguable if Marx was anti-philosophy. The materialist thought , no matter how non-abstract and non-metaphysical it is , it still tries to respond to original question of existence

Agreed, I hope most of you realize that there is more to philosophy then just the obsolete philosophy of idealism.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Well, I'd like you to list half a dozen philosophers who aren't as I described them.

I don't really know or care to much for philosophy but:

Foucault, Althusser, Nietzsche, Epicurus, Thomas Hobbes (I believe), and Pierre Bourdieu

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

he and his Frankfurt School pals do nothing to further practical socialism.

You may not be aware that Benjamin in the late 'twenties and Adorno in the 'sixties were heavily involved in radio broadcasting. Of course, that doesn't sit well with those intellectuals who would like to believe that ordinary people are as incapable of philosophical reflection as they are...

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

xx1994xx:


Agreed, I hope most of you realize that there is more to philosophy then just the obsolete philosophy of idealism.

And what 'more' there is, is just a priori dogmatism dressed up as self-important Super-science.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AV:


I don't really know or care to much for philosophy but:

Foucault, Althusser, Nietzsche, Epicurus, Thomas Hobbes (I believe), and Pierre Bourdieu

I'm sorry, but how does that list meet my challenge?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

HC:


You may not be aware that Benjamin in the late 'twenties and Adorno in the 'sixties were heavily involved in radio broadcasting. Of course, that doesn't sit well with those intellectuals who would like to believe that ordinary people are as incapable of philosophical reflection as they are...

Well they are, since everyone is incapable.

[L.A.P.]

xx1994xx:



And what 'more' there is, is just a priori dogmatism dressed up as self-important Super-science.

Self-important super-science? I really love the way you overcomplicate your sentences, talk about "distortion of language".

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

xx1994xx:


Self-important super-science? I really love the way you overcomplicate your sentences, talk about "distortion of language".

Ok, let's hear you talk about it...

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

HC:
Well they are, since everyone is incapable.

Project, much?:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol:

[ZeroNowhere]

Project, much?:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::lol:
Dagnik lillikant aardvark sint fint jabberwock naky.

Think that.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

Dagnik lillikant aardvark sint fint jabberwock naky.

Think that.

I....I....I can't!:crying:
But...wait!:unsure: I can think about that! I know what an aardvark is! And I could write a book about the development of the letter D in "Dagnik!" And...."jabberwock?":rolleyes: Easy-peasy!

Tenemus rosam in nomine, baby!:lol: Zero, you are sooooo right! (And so was Kant! And Marx! and Wittgenstein, too!:D:D:D:D:D ) We can only apprehend the da-sein through the process of apprehension!:cool:

Oh - and so was Barthes, who pointed out that the effort to evade the process :glare: (the "degree zero of writing") is the tell-tale smell of the farts of the fascist,:cursing: be he or she of the Right or Left.:tt2::tt2::tt2::tt2:

[ZeroNowhere]

Everything is so much clearer now.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

HC:


Project, much?

No, but I'm working on it.

I need help from an expert.

Any tips?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one another as masturbation and sexual love." - Marx

[NGNM85]

And what 'more' there is, is just a priori dogmatism dressed up as self-important Super-science.

That's a pretty fair description of Marxism.

[Hoipolloi Cassidy]

HC:
I need help from an expert.
Any tips?

Like we say here among us workin' folks,

"Never try to teach a hog to sing. It wastes yer time, an' the hog gets annoyed."

[Apoi_Viitor]

I'm sorry, but how does that list meet my challenge?

Wasn't it philosophers who believe that truth isn't disclosed by thought alone? How doesn't my list fulfill your challenge?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

AV:


Wasn't it philosophers who believe that truth isn't disclosed by thought alone? How doesn't my list fulfill your challenge?

As far as I can see, they might have said that, but they did the exact opposite in their writings, coming out with their own a priori theses, which they happily imposed on the world.

Nietzsche is perhaps the best example, excoriating metphysics, but inventing his own a priori theories at the same time.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

HC:


Like we say here among us workin' folks,

"Never try to teach a hog to sing. It wastes yer time, an' the hog gets annoyed."

Looks like that advice failed with you, then.:(

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

NGNM85:


That's a pretty fair description of Marxism.

Well, it's certainly true with respect to Dialectical Materialsm and 'Materialist Dialectics', but not with respect to Historical Materialism [HM], since the latter is a science.

Of course, there are Marxists who treat HM as a series of dogmas, and I will not even attempt to defend them. But, it wasn't true of Marx, and it isn't true of those who seek to emulate his respect for the facts.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

NHIA:


"Philosophy and the study of the actual world have the same relation to one another as masturbation and sexual love." - Marx

Yes, thanks for that, but if you check back, I used this and other quotations from Marx to this effect earlier in this thread.

[Zanthorus]

Well, it's certainly true with respect to Dialectical Materialsm and 'Materialist Dialectics', but not with respect to Historical Materialism [HM], since the latter is a science.

I should probably start a new thread for this but I am wondering, I've seen you say this in a few places that 'historical materialism' is a 'science'. I'd like to know exactly what you think Marx meant when he talked about the 'materialist conception of history', and why exactly you think it is a 'science'. I've seen you reccomend G. A. Cohen in the past, whose interpretation I personally disagree with. I'd be interested in debating this with you since I'm still personally shaky on certain aspects of this particular question and it seem perhaps a more promising avenue for discussion than the endless back and forth on dialectics.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Z:


I should probably start a new thread for this but I am wondering, I've seen you say this in a few places that 'historical materialism' is a 'science'. I'd like to know exactly what you think Marx meant when he talked about the 'materialist conception of history', and why exactly you think it is a 'science'. I've seen you reccomend G. A. Cohen in the past, whose interpretation I personally disagree with. I'd be interested in debating this with you since I'm still personally shaky on certain aspects of this particular question and it seem perhaps a more promising avenue for discussion than the endless back and forth on dialectics.

In fact, this was discussed here a while back:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/historical-materialism-scientifici-t92796/index.html

And Marx also called HM a science:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1986030&postcount=32

[Zanthorus]

Skimming through that thread, the word 'historical materialism' is used occasionally but no-one ever rigorously defines it. The debate seems to be over whether or not we can make predictions about the future based on past events, which to me does not seem to be particularly relevant to Marx's materialist method. You again reccomend Gerry Cohen's work while decrying his 'technological determinism' and 'functionalism'. But this leaves me none the wiser what you actually think the MCoH is and how exactly it constitutes a 'science'.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

No, if you look at the debate between me and Invader Zim, you will see we cover this question in detail. Sure, we are debating history in general, but my comments could equally well apply to HM.

And I'm not a fan of definitions (except in more formal areas of science, mathematics and logic).