Philosophy?

[JJenkins]

Wasn't Marx decidedly against the notion of philosophy? I didn't think that a forum so heavily involved in Marxism would create a section on philospophy when Marx himself regularly reiterated, or so is my understanding, the fact that it is something which is, at it's least inconsequential, and at it's most detrimental, to the cause of the Proletariat.

Firstly there is the concluding statement of the Thirteenth Thesis on Feuerbach: 'Philosophers have only interpreted the world in different ways; the point is to change it.' Marx's break from traditional German Ideology - Hegelian thought etc. - and his theory of new materialism sought to escape the notion that we should merely interpret the world as it is presented to us and philosophise about it. One should be intellectually equipping oneself with theories only so as to one day have the adequate resources to change the world.

And then, if I remember rightly, didn't Marx also profess that any ideology, including philosophy, is shaped solely by the social environment in which it is conceived. Which would mean, if one takes into account his assertion that current ideology is dictated by the bourgoisie and shaped to their needs, that most of the philosophy discussed is irrelevant because it is a product of a society which must be left behind if communism is to succeed.

I know I probably made a hundred mistakes and I don't have the willpower to check what I wrote so sorry. It was just a wondering I had when I first arrived at this here little forum: what place does philosophy have here? Of course, I'm not saying that philosophy is entirely irrelevant, only that it seems an incongruous subject to include in a forum that is so heavily involved in Marxism.

P.S. Glad I found this place. It's overall a great little thinking pot.

[Hit The North]

Hi JJ,

We've recently had a similar debate which you might be interested in HERE (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=52498).

I have to say that after five pages the proponents of philosophy failed to convince me why revolutionaries need it.

Paradoxically, the Philosophy forum would barely exist if it wasn't used by Comrade Rosa to militate against philosophy itself. :D

Hope you enjoy the site anyway, comrade.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Marx recognized that unless philosophy translated into action it was worthless. Action without philosophy behind it is barbarism, I feel, and should not be imbraced. All Marx was saying is that leftist action is better than leftist philosophy. He surely recognized the importance of having logical grounds for doing something.

[Monty Cantsin]

Originally posted by Citizen [email protected] 10 2006, 08:31 PM


I have to say that after five pages the proponents of philosophy failed to convince me why revolutionaries need it.

I think this is a pretty irrational position to take; it’s logically inconsistent with itself. You can’t take a philosophical position and say that philosophy is of no value when you’re using it in the very process.

You can limit philosophies scope and role, and say it’s only useful for a limited sphere; you can’t get rid of it completely.

[JJenkins]

That helps. I'm new to Marxism (I don't even know yet if I advocate it due to the fact that I understand it so little) and the question was fuelled by curiosity more than anything.

I'm a little way through German Ideology and the idea of philosophy and Hegel was one of the things that struck me. I didn't mean to undermine the notion of philosophy in itself, nor the importance of its application, rather to enquire as to why, after reading the first half of GI, philosophy was an important topic on a forum so heavily involved in Marxism.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Hit The North]

Originally posted by Dooga Aetrus [email protected] 10 2006, 10:58 PM
Marx recognized that unless philosophy translated into action it was worthless. Action without philosophy behind it is barbarism, I feel, and should not be imbraced. All Marx was saying is that leftist action is better than leftist philosophy. He surely recognized the importance of having logical grounds for doing something.
Agreed that action needs to be informed by theory. But this brings us to the distinction between theory (which is based on analysis of empirical and historical observation) and speculative philosophy which Marx abandoned in favour of political economy.

Philosophy doesn't help us to understand capitalism and it certainly doesn't aid us in overthrowing it.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

How do you define speculative philosophy. Sometimes you may not be able to get an emperical answer to a question. In those cases, it may be neccessary (until emperical evidence is found) to speculate based on what evidence you have. Isn't philosophy simply the creation of theory based on reasoning when material evidence is lasting.

I don't know how you define philosophy. I know some of it (just like some science) is misguided.

[apathy maybe]

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=55752


Originally posted by JJenkins+--> (JJenkins)Wasn't Marx decidedly against the notion of philosophy? I didn't think that a forum so heavily involved in Marxism would create a section on philospophy when Marx himself regularly reiterated, or so is my understanding, the fact that it is something which is, at it's least inconsequential, and at it's most detrimental, to the cause of the Proletariat.[/b]
It is not just Marxists you know ... There are plenty of anarchists and other socialists on this board.
Philosophy is involved with ethics as well as useless metaphysics.


JJenkins
And then, if I remember rightly, didn't Marx also profess that any ideology, including philosophy, is shaped solely by the social environment in which it is conceived. Which would mean, if one takes into account his assertion that current ideology is dictated by the bourgoisie and shaped to their needs, that most of the philosophy discussed is irrelevant because it is a product of a society which must be left behind if communism is to succeed.
In which case Marxism is also shaped by the society that it came from ... What Marx meant (I think) by ideology is not exactly how it is understood today. Marx did not consider his own theories to be an ideology for example.

Yes the dominant culture, philosophy and values are problematic for anyone wishing to bring about a better world, but that does not mean that all culture, philosophy and values are dangerous or irrelevant.

[Chrysalis]

"Marx was born in Trier, Prussia (now Germany), in 1818. He studied philosophy at universities in Bonn and Berlin, earning his doctorate in Jena at the age of twenty-three. His early radicalism, first as a member of the Young Hegelians, then as editor of a newspaper suppressed for its derisive social and political content, preempted any career aspirations in academia and forced him to flee to Paris in 1843. It was then that Marx cemented his lifelong friendship with Friedrich Engels. In 1849 Marx moved to London, where he continued to study and write, drawing heavily upon works by David Ricardo and Adam Smith. Marx died in London in 1883 in somewhat impoverished surroundings, never having held a job in England and relying on Engels for financial support. "

~The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics

[gilhyle]

This depends what you mean by philosophy. 'Speculative philosophy' is a particular term used by German idealism to describe itslelf.

In my opinion, most philosophy falls roughly into this category: it is a reflection by an individual seeking to clarify for himself, after debate with others, concepts and categories which for that person legitimate perception, understanding or action.

Marxism does not seek to provide answers for individuals to personal dilemmas and thus does not engage in philosophy.

What it does do is engage in 'critique' of philosopies generated within the dominant ideology so show their inadequacy and inchoerence.

[Esplin]

Philosophy is the attempt of Human Beings to try and understand the nature of their existence and the world around them. Marx simply created several ideas in order to create a better society for the workers. The attempts to evaluate the personal issues of the human condition are irrelevant to the striving of creating the workers paradise, which concerns itself with the liberation of the workers class as a whole.


most of the philosophy discussed is irrelevant because it is a product of a society which must be left behind if communism is to succeed.

Perhaps. But what must be asked, if the "old" society is indeed left behind and a new one is established on the principles of communism, and if that society is replaced with another, are the philosophies developed during that time now redundant, despite the base on which they were founded upon?

To me!

[Hegemonicretribution]

I guess I best try and defend this forum, I am kind of fond of it :P

Philosophy is not a definite area of study, by its very nature it is loose at best, but it doesn't mean it is useless.

Philosophy can be benificial for developing certain mental skills, empathy especially (for example if you can entertain an idea without accepting it that is something in itself), and at least allows us to become effective devil's advocates. Logic is useful, and philosophy of science also, and at the top levels maths and philosophy and logic can seem quite similar.

There are "philosophical" components to Marxism, such as materialism, and if you are dealing with opposing concepts then understanding the core philosophies gives you an edge.

Philosophy is heavily tied to language, and the manipulation of language is key to debate at least, and whilst this is not the most important thing when pulling a trigger, it is important when convincing people of the worth of a course of action.

There is also, like it or not, an institution of sorts built around much of philosophy, and it is integral to parts of literature, and other areas of study. Whilst it would be good to move away from the esoteric references of old, it is still handy to be able to understand history in its truest context, and that is with obscurities included.

This forum is also a bit of fun, even when representing views that you may not necessarily hold, and like some of the cultural forums it can add to the community feeling essential for a board such as this.

I have many more arguments in favour of this forum, but really I think the reasons listed should be enough. I just wish I wasn't away for the last debate on this...I am sure this place was still well defended however ;)

[Dyst]

However stupid it may sound I think it's really in the "nature" of human beings to philosophize. In the same way that thinking normally and wondering about things is in the "nature" of human beings.

I don't even think that there's a question about good or bad when it comes to philosophy. It just is, like it or not. Not that philosophy could ever be bad.

[Demogorgon]

Marx was a pphilosopher actually. Probably one of the most important of the nineteenth century. Take any philosophy class and you will be seeing plenty of his work.