Valdyr
18th April 2012, 19:52
Something that's been bothering me for a while is the relationship between Marxism and philosophy, though perhaps this is because my intellectual background is, like Marx, in bourgeois philosophy. I'm fairly new (relatively speaking) to Marxism and can get overwhelmed by the number of responses to this question, so it would be nice to get some input on this.
From what I can tell, there seem to be three broad ways one can answer this question. The first is to say that Marx was a philosopher, and he just broke with conventional philosophy. The second is to say that he was simply unconcerned with philosophy, but we still need to do philosophy (I find this hardest to believe). The third, which with my admittedly limited perspective I find the most plausible, is that Marx was an antiphilosopher in the technical sense; he attempted to break with philosophy/was wary of it, but for philosophically interesting reasons.
From what I've seen so far, this third interpretation can be further broken down. Some, like Etienne Balibar (apparently, I haven't read the book), think he was "the greatest antiphilosopher." Others think he attempted to break with philosophy, but didn't successfully complete this break. There in turn seem to be two responses to this: that we can and should try to complete the break, or that total antiphilosophy is hopeless and we need some philosophy to "ground" everything else. Alex Callinicos seems to take the latter view, though I'm wary of it because it seems like an attempt to sneak bourgeois philosophy in the back door.
This is really bothering me, because I still have a lot of nagging doubts I inherited from bourgeois philosophy, and it's annoying. I definitely think Marxism is correct, but part of me can't help going "but the academic philosophers don't believe this! What if you're wasting your time and the analytic naturalists or worse the Christian fundamentalist philosophers are right and I'm just being an idiot?!" Silly, I know, but it bothers me.
The sheer multitude of answers to this question is staggering, and I'm not in a position to evaluate them completely by myself, so help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for any input!
NOTE: Mods, feel free to move this if you feel it would be better in another section. I put it in learning because my primary purpose in making the thread was my own education, not to stimulate debate.
From what I can tell, there seem to be three broad ways one can answer this question. The first is to say that Marx was a philosopher, and he just broke with conventional philosophy. The second is to say that he was simply unconcerned with philosophy, but we still need to do philosophy (I find this hardest to believe). The third, which with my admittedly limited perspective I find the most plausible, is that Marx was an antiphilosopher in the technical sense; he attempted to break with philosophy/was wary of it, but for philosophically interesting reasons.
From what I've seen so far, this third interpretation can be further broken down. Some, like Etienne Balibar (apparently, I haven't read the book), think he was "the greatest antiphilosopher." Others think he attempted to break with philosophy, but didn't successfully complete this break. There in turn seem to be two responses to this: that we can and should try to complete the break, or that total antiphilosophy is hopeless and we need some philosophy to "ground" everything else. Alex Callinicos seems to take the latter view, though I'm wary of it because it seems like an attempt to sneak bourgeois philosophy in the back door.
This is really bothering me, because I still have a lot of nagging doubts I inherited from bourgeois philosophy, and it's annoying. I definitely think Marxism is correct, but part of me can't help going "but the academic philosophers don't believe this! What if you're wasting your time and the analytic naturalists or worse the Christian fundamentalist philosophers are right and I'm just being an idiot?!" Silly, I know, but it bothers me.
The sheer multitude of answers to this question is staggering, and I'm not in a position to evaluate them completely by myself, so help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance for any input!
NOTE: Mods, feel free to move this if you feel it would be better in another section. I put it in learning because my primary purpose in making the thread was my own education, not to stimulate debate.