Thread: "there is, in reality, no marxist philosophy..."

Results 1 to 20 of 28

  1. #1
    Join Date Aug 2007
    Location tejas
    Posts 48
    Rep Power 0

    Default "there is, in reality, no marxist philosophy..."

    because marx presented us with an anti-philosophy - or so says this work:

    Balibar, Étienne. The Philosophy of Marx. Trans. Chris Turner. 1995. London: Verso, 2007.

    freely download-able here: http://www.mediafire.com/?myzhcizhonn
  2. #2
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Quite right, G.

    See also:

    Brudney, D. (1998), Marx's Attempt To Leave Philosophy (Harvard University Press).
  3. #3
    Join Date Jan 2008
    Posts 18
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Are you out of your mind? Whoever you are, get ready for the big surprise.
  4. #4
    Join Date May 2008
    Location Regno de Granda Fenviko
    Posts 2,336
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    because marx presented us with an anti-philosophy - or so says this work:

    Balibar, Étienne. The Philosophy of Marx. Trans. Chris Turner. 1995. London: Verso, 2007.
    Yes, Marxism isn't formally a philosophy. Nihilism is the only anti-philosophy I'm aware of.
    Eppur si muove -- Galileo Galilei


    [FONT=Tahoma]
    [/FONT]
  5. #5
    Freelance revolutionary Committed User
    Join Date Nov 2003
    Location Au$tralia
    Posts 4,334
    Organisation
    ASU
    Rep Power 38

    Default

    Althusser wrote alot about Marxist Philosophy. He described Marxism as a scientific method not a philosophy. So he looks at late Marx as Marxism, as a scientific method such as Capital and early Marx as humanistic philosophy, which is not Marxist.

    However Althusser noted it is only after every great scientific finding through new revolutionary method (Marx's Historical Materialism and Capital in this latest epoch) the philosophy follows. Althusser viewed Dialectical Materialism as the philosophy that would follow Marx's scientific method and it is only after Marx laid down this foundation that other people could go into detail of a Marxist philosophy.

    Althusser expressed these ideas in For Marx. It is either in the "For My English Readers" the "Introduction" or "Contradiction and Overdetermination", I can't remember but that is all I have read so far.
    The spiritual atom bomb which the revolutionary people possess is a far more powerful and useful weapon than the physical atom bomb. - Lin Biao

    Our code of morals is our revolution. What saves our revolution, what helps our revolution, what protects our revolution is right, is very right and very honourable and very noble and very beautiful, because our revolution means justice

    - Dr. George Habash, founder of the PFLP.


  6. #6
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Trivas:

    Nihilism is the only anti-philosophy I'm aware of.
    Wittgenstein was also an anti-philosopher, just like Marx, and me.
  7. #7
    Join Date Jan 2008
    Posts 18
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Trivas:



    Wittgenstein was also an anti-philosopher, just like Marx, and me.
    You're a fucking choir boy compared to me! A choir boy!
  8. #8
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    CryingAnts:

    You're a fucking choir boy compared to me! A choir boy!
    Ok, so you are a church organ. So what?
  9. #9
    Join Date May 2008
    Location Regno de Granda Fenviko
    Posts 2,336
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Trivas:
    Wittgenstein was also an anti-philosopher, just like Marx, and me.
    What's an anti-philosopher but a philosopher who doesn't know her own premises?
    Eppur si muove -- Galileo Galilei


    [FONT=Tahoma]
    [/FONT]
  10. #10
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Trivas:

    What's an anti-philosopher but a philosopher who doesn't know her own premises?
    And where did you get that gem from? A Christmas cracker?
  11. #11
    Join Date May 2008
    Location Regno de Granda Fenviko
    Posts 2,336
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    And where did you get that gem from? A Christmas cracker?
    Like the anti-concept, the anti-philosophy is a an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate philosophy (See what can be learned from right-wing nut cases?)
    Eppur si muove -- Galileo Galilei


    [FONT=Tahoma]
    [/FONT]
  12. #12
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Trivas:

    Like the anti-concept, the anti-philosophy is a an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate philosophy (See what can be learned from right-wing nut cases?)
    As I said, we already know you are a dogmatist -- so there really is no need for you to keep on trying to prove it.

    Thanks anyway!
  13. #13
    Join Date Sep 2005
    Posts 1,688
    Rep Power 15

    Default

    Philosophers participate in the practice of philosophy...like Wittgenstein.. Marxists participate in the articulation of Marxist theory.

    Philosophers demand, in the face of a remark like this, to have the distinction endlessly explained and defined and therapeutically reviewed.

    Marxists do not. They move on.
    "Dixi et salvavi animam meam" - quoted by Marx
    "Things rarely work out well if one aims at 'moderation'..." - Engels
    "By and by we heare newes of shipwrack in the same place, then we are too blame if we accept it not for a Rock." Sir Philip Sydney
    "The most to be hoped for by groups who claim to belong to the Marxist succession (...) is for them to serve as a hyphen between past and future....nothing can be held sacred – everything is called into question. Only after having been put through such a crucible could socialism conceivably re-emerge as a viable doctrine and plan of action." - Van Heijenoort
  14. #14
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Gil:

    like Wittgenstein
    But that would make all philosophers anti-philsophers, then.

    Marxists do not.
    Dogmatists like you don't, that's true.

    They move on.
    Like headless chickens...

    Philosophers demand, in the face of a remark like this, to have the distinction endlessly explained and defined and therapeutically reviewed.
    In fact, philosophers ignore superficial comments like this.
  15. #15
    Join Date Aug 2007
    Location tejas
    Posts 48
    Rep Power 0

    Default potayto potahto

    so did anyone read even the introductory chapter of balibar's book?

    ...how about quoting an excerpt from the text and then saying whether you agree or disagree and why?
  16. #16
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    No, but I will -- but not yet, since I am in the middle of putting the finishing touches to a rather long Essay.
  17. #17
    Join Date Aug 2005
    Location Richmond, VA
    Posts 6,143
    Organisation
    I.M.C.C.
    Rep Power 49

    Default

    because marx presented us with an anti-philosophy - or so says this work:

    Balibar, Étienne. The Philosophy of Marx. Trans. Chris Turner. 1995. London: Verso, 2007.

    freely download-able here: http://www.mediafire.com/?myzhcizhonn
    I disagree with this sentiment. Philosophy is the scientific inquiry into some of the more basic issues of reality and human experience. Marx was a philosopher, though he differed from some of his contemporaries in that he tried to apply a methodical, more analytical standard to the studies of philosophy.

    It is important, in these cases, to determine what we should call "philosophy" and "science." more important is whether or not they are mutually exclusive, and what qualifies as "non-philosophy" or "non-science." Considering such standards, it can usually be deducted that there are no clear distinctions between the two poles in each case, and more specifically relevant, that between whatever studies philosphy and whatever studies science there is no real differentiating standard.
  18. #18
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Dean:

    Philosophy is the scientific inquiry into some of the more basic issues of reality and human experience. Marx was a philosopher, though he differed from some of his contemporaries in that he tried to apply a methodical, more analytical standard to the studies of philosophy.
    But, Philosophy differs from science in that (1) the latter is committed to the experimental verification or falsification of its theories, and (2) the former aims at discovering theses by thought alone, supposedly true in all possible worlds, and for which experimental evidence is irrelevant. The two disciplines have totally different methodologies and aim at totally different results.

    This is quite apart from the fact that Marx specifically rejected philosophy.

    It is important, in these cases, to determine what we should call "philosophy" and "science." more important is whether or not they are mutually exclusive, and what qualifies as "non-philosophy" or "non-science." Considering such standards, it can usually be deducted that there are no clear distinctions between the two poles in each case, and more specifically relevant, that between whatever studies philosophy and whatever studies science there is no real differentiating standard.
    Of course, 150 years ago, scientists were called 'natural philosophers', but that is no more reason for us to accept an overlap between the two disciplines than we should accept that science overlaps with theology just because 150 years ago natural theology was also classified as part of what we'd now call science.

    Sure, we can re-define the two as overlapping, but then we can also re-define capitalism as 'just and fair', but what would be the point of that?
  19. #19
    Join Date Sep 2005
    Posts 1,688
    Rep Power 15

    Default

    Like headless chickens...
    And chickens with heads, and hens, and pigs and cows and sheep and dogs and ......humans, except philosophers and theologians.
    "Dixi et salvavi animam meam" - quoted by Marx
    "Things rarely work out well if one aims at 'moderation'..." - Engels
    "By and by we heare newes of shipwrack in the same place, then we are too blame if we accept it not for a Rock." Sir Philip Sydney
    "The most to be hoped for by groups who claim to belong to the Marxist succession (...) is for them to serve as a hyphen between past and future....nothing can be held sacred – everything is called into question. Only after having been put through such a crucible could socialism conceivably re-emerge as a viable doctrine and plan of action." - Van Heijenoort
  20. #20
    Join Date Nov 2005
    Location UK
    Posts 16,778
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    Gil:

    And chickens with heads, and hens, and pigs and cows and sheep and dogs and ......humans, except philosophers and theologians.
    Can we have the scientific evidence for this please?

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 29th April 2008, 12:22
  2. Ex "Marxist" Sandinista Ortega calls Obama revolutionary
    By Dominicana_1965 in forum News & Ongoing Struggles
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 23rd February 2008, 22:39
  3. RW: Iraq "Handover Day" and the Reality
    By Skeptic in forum Opposing Ideologies
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 3rd July 2004, 06:48

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Website Security Test