Marx as philosopher.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Marx of course was an amazing thinker but let us look at one of his most famous quotes:

'The philosopher's have only interpeted the world, the point however is to change it'

Now this is quite a defiant saying is it not?

As amatuer philosophers, what do you think, I am addressing the usual philosophy forum people, you know who you are.

What would you say to Marx if he had said it to you directly.

[canikickit]

To put it simply, I'd agree.

I don't see it as detracting from the work of philosophers, it's acknowledging their aid in identifying what needs to be changed.

What do you think?

[Wenty]

I would say that he makes a good point but perhaps we need to interpret the world first then change it. Understand the enemy, so to speak!

I would also say that the work past philosophers have done have been very influential. Without Hegel merely 'interpreting the world' how different would Marxism be? Very i think.

[LSD]

I think what Marx meant is that philosphers can theorize, but that those theorize do no one any good unless someone puts them into practice. I, of course, agree.


Without Hegel merely 'interpreting the world' how different would Marxism be? Very i think.

Yes different, though not nescessarily for the worse .....

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 31 2004, 12:57 AM


Without Hegel merely 'interpreting the world' how different would Marxism be? Very i think.

Yes different, though not nescessarily for the worse .....

Wait what do you mean by that?

Marxism stems from Hegelian thought. Dialectics - Marx took from Hegel and developed it...what are do you mean. Clarify.

[LSD]

Dialectics - Marx took from Hegel and developed it...what are do you mean. Clarify.

Actuall that was specifically what I was talking about!
Fundamentally, Dialectics really doesn't make much sense. As communism has developped it has gradually moved away from many elements of Hegellian thought, rightfully I'd say.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I would not attrbute dialectics to Hegel only, even if they were key. Anyway I believe that Marx was more of a theorist than a philosipher. He intended his plans to be carried out. His works were intended to work as empirical rather than normative concepts. This is slightly ironic considerring that amongst opposing paradigms this is his biggest criticism.

"What is to be done" and other such works are an obvious follow on, however I think perhaps Marx had a little to much faith in the proetarait of his time. Lets face it, Engels who bailed him out was bourgeois. I believe Marx was slightly disillussioned. However he made his mark far morethan was thought possible at the time. I guess in the way that he has romantically been flaunted as the answer to oppression, he has been more successful than is allowed in the space of one's lifetime and therefore he deserves credit regaldless of the viewas of his ideas.

[Zanzibar]

Marx was an economists not a philosopher. At anyrate, I don't think anyone follows him to his word. He is not a God. However, I happen to believe in many of the things he has said.

[redstar2000]

I think Marx was fascinated by philosophy as a youth...but then he "put away childish things" and moved on to economics, sociology, history and politics--the real world.

Lucky for us!

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas

[Monty Cantsin]

i have major methodological foundation differences from that of Marxism. Being that it is based on a dualist conception of history and human endeavors. i am of the idea that Marx’s conception of history was to narrow, because it totally disregards much of human nature. This flaw was coursed by Marx total distain for religion, so therefore his theories where constructed so there would be no potential room for religion.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 04:25 AM
Marx was an economists not a philosopher. At anyrate, I don't think anyone follows him to his word. He is not a God. However, I happen to believe in many of the things he has said.

Can he not be both?

Marx was certainly a philosopher, he is an extremely interesting one at that. To say he wasn't is lunacy.


I think Marx was fascinated by philosophy as a youth...but then he "put away childish things" and moved on to economics, sociology, history and politics--the real world.

Lucky for us!

Marixism is first and foremost a philosophy the same way any school of thought generally is. It is through philosophy we have Marxism, the subjects you mentioned especially sociology are related very much so to philosophy. The are all branches on Descartes tree.

;)

[iloveatomickitten]

'The philosopher's have only interpeted the world, the point however is to change it'

I'm not exactly familiar with Marx's work but from what I know its doesn't seem that he has a total disrespect for philosophy and from the quote is appears quite the opposite to me. The interpretation of the world is totally essential for the change to occur (well that is positive change). Thought is something which is to me unnatural in that it is capable of contadicting our basic instincts to a degree, allowing society to exist in a form not overly dominated by egoism. Without it I simply can't see a classless society being founded, so to assume that philosophy is 'crap' is ridiculous for a communist.

The statement only stands to add emphasis to the inplementation of his theories being the most important part of the whole but not the first and the last part of that whole. Then again I could be manifestly wrong to you.

[che's long lost daughter]

There can be no changing without the interpreting first. They go hand in hand. But, wouldn't it be better if the interpreter would also be the changer?

[Marxist in Nebraska]

The quote in question from Marx has always struck me as not necessarily demeaning toward philosophy. To me, it has suggested that philosophy is not enough. That is not to say that philosophy cannot be more than useful. We do have to know what we are fighting, and how to fight it. Philosophy can help us in answering these important questions. Marx's cricism, deserved in my opinion, is that we have to change the world and not just interpret it.

As far as the question as to whether Marx was a sociologist, economist, historian, philosopher... I would suggest that he is all of the above, to greater or lesser extents. I can understand being torn between social sciences--they all divide my attention as well.

[che's long lost daughter]

Originally posted by Marxist in [email protected] 2 2004, 08:01 PM
The quote in question from Marx has always struck me as not necessarily demeaning toward philosophy. To me, it has suggested that philosophy is not enough. That is not to say that philosophy cannot be more than useful. We do have to know what we are fighting, and how to fight it. Philosophy can help us in answering these important questions. Marx's cricism, deserved in my opinion, is that we have to change the world and not just interpret it.

As far as the question as to whether Marx was a sociologist, economist, historian, philosopher... I would suggest that he is all of the above, to greater or lesser extents. I can understand being torn between social sciences--they all divide my attention as well.
What a true Marxist you are :)

[Marxist in Nebraska]

clld,

Would you care to explain that response for me, please? Firstly, I cannot be certain whether you are complimenting me or being sarcastic. That is the danger of a one-line post.

If I am a true Marxist, what tips my hand from that post? If I am not, what did I say that suggests that?

[Elect Marx]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 04:54 AM
I think Marx was fascinated by philosophy as a youth...but then he "put away childish things" and moved on to economics, sociology, history and politics--the real world.

Lucky for us!

http://anarchist-action.org/forums/images/smiles/redstar.gif

The RedStar2000 Papers (http://www.anarchist-action.org/marxists/redstar2000/)
A site about communist ideas
Interesting phrase to apply but I think that is oversiplifying the matter. I would say Marx moved on to economics and sociology becuase it was needed. Much as I am an artist and an inventor but in this corrupt capitalist system I live in, politics is needed to progress and understand my environment, I had to develope political awareness to possibly overcome obsticles. Marx probably had to progress in his line of thought to adapt to his environment. If this "real world," (AKA political struggle) was not such a burden, he may have contiued in other fields of study.

[Marxist in Nebraska]

Interesting post, Comrade 3iVi...

That reminds me of Noam Chomsky, actually.

Chomsky's original field of study is in linguistics. In an interview last year, Chomsky said that he has always found linguistics fascinating and would have made it his life's work, if not for the state of the world. In a better world, he would have not gotten into politics. But the U.S. was waging genocidal war in Southeast Asia (early '60s -- Vietnam is intensifying), and Chomsky had to do something about it.

[praxis1966]

I do believe that another of Marx's quotes applies here. "I am a philosopher and a historian." In other words, Marx was asserting that philosophy was essentially useless unless applied within the larger context of historical interpretation. Several others have done the same, not least of which were Antonio Gramsci and Paolo Friere. The point is to establish a working philosophical paradigm from which to implement historical trend analysis. This is why in most modern universities Marx is juxtaposed with the stature of Weber for his foundation of the conflict paradigm of sociology.

In other words, I do not believe Marx would have considered himself diametrically opposed to philosophy. Instead, he would have considered the field one of the necessary tools to manipulate human history and to overcome, as Friere would have put it, societal limit-situations.

Edit: By the way, Euripides, I agree completely. Even Gramsci, who was an avid admirer of Marx, Hegel, and Aristotle, eventually moved past them. To paraphrase Hegemony and Revolution, Marx had entirely too many positivist and naturalist encrustations to be supremely valid in the modern world.