Sorry,
Had a major technical breakdown.
About the only thing of Marx's early writings that relates to science is his
1844 Critique of Hegelian Philosophy (At the end of the article he devotes
about a page and a half to discussion the movement from Logic to Nature in
Hegel's Encyclopaedia of Logic. It isn't much but small as it is it's
sharp).
Oudeyis
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ralph Dumain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu>
Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 30, 2005 11:25
Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] O, Dialectics!
Well, if you got my point (2), the rest shouldn't be so mysterious. M&E
openly admit they're not going to tackle directly either the natural
sciences as an intellectual enterprise or their objects of study (laws of
nature). At the same time they admit that's part of the picture, though
they are specifically beginning their studies from the standpoint of
historical materialism. That's a pretty damn important point, esp. for
those who would make claims about Marx's attitude to science.
As I recall, at that stage, Marx only really considers science as
something that plays a role in industry--man's advanced interchange with
nature. Science as an intellectual activity in itself, as theorizing,
method, or research, is not part of the picture at this time. Hence, M&E
do not turn their attention to the philosophy of the natural sciences.
I'll add to that: when Marx makes remarks criticizing prior materialism,
this belongs to the history of philosophy, not actual modern science.
Discussing Epicurus and Democritus or the French materialists is not
engaging with science. I'll add also, that a philosophy of nature is not
a philosophy of science, if a perspective on scientific methodology as a
means of understanding nature is not included in it.
BTW, Marx's early writings (vol. 1) includes some outline of Hegel's
philosophy of nature. But I don't really know how Marx may have used
Hegel's PN. Does anyone know something I don't?
At 12:06 AM 5/30/2005 -0700, Steve Gabosch wrote:
Steve responds to a post from Ralph:
Ralph:
on 5/29/2005 at 12:48 PM Ralph explained, referring to the passage from
M&E copied below:
... Note that M&E state that natural preconditions antedate historical
analysis, but they are not going to delve into them at this point. Two
conclusions follow: (1) Nature is not merely a social category for Marx
as some claim; (2) Marx doesn't take the trouble at this point to
investigate natural science and especially not its objective correlate as
an activity in itself, since the question at hand is the organization of
man's practical interaction with nature in conjunction with social
organization. But doesn"t practical interaction include natural
scientific research, methodology, and theory? It must, of course, ...
Steve:
I am with Ralph so far, but I am puzzled by where Ralph goes next:
Ralph:
... but note that Marx is onto the direct, practical transformation of
nature as it applies to material production and not that aspect of it
that deals with specialized scientific activity. Note the plural
references to physical preconditions--nature in general and human
physiology in particular--that are acknowledged as preconditions and then
set aside. Do you see the distinction here?
Steve:
To be honest, I don't get what point Ralph is trying to make yet, so I
guess I have to answer: no - I don't yet see the distinction being made
here - sorry! Ralph, if you would be so kind as to explain this
distinction ...
- Steve
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
_______________________________________________
Marxism-Thaxis mailing list
Marxism-Thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
