"Recognition of the negativity implied in the relation of man to nature is the first step toward a new conception of the activity of philosophy because it redefines the concept of human autonomy. According to the initial position of the youthful Marx, it is impossible to fully understand what it means to be human without grasping the dialectical relation of man to nature. In its most basic sense, this means that to exist as a free individual is to recognize both one's material determination in and through nature, and one's formal determination against nature. To be human, in other words, is both to be natural, possessing immediate, material being, and to break away from such material determination in the act of free, self-conscious determination. This second, explicitly negative moment is of special interest, for it is here that we see the origins of Marx's conception of human praxis as a form of activity directed against the external world. In order to realize itself concretely, human self-consciousness must be active in the creation of a world where free interaction between individuals is possible. just as the atom attains to self-sufficiency only when it declines from the straight line and repels others from itself, human consciousness must be active and critically present in the world in order to gain autonomy and, thereby, to experience genuine freedom."
[endquote 62-5] ------------------------------------- Ralph: If you understand this, please explain it to me. Schafer concludes his commentary with an analysis of the relation of philosophy and praxis in aforementioned famous footnote. ^^^^^^ CB: I'm not going to claim that I "understand" it, but some of it reminds me of some things I have thought about. "To be human, in other words, is both to be natural, possessing immediate, material being, and to break away from such material determination in the act of free, self-conscious determination." My way of saying this is that humans are both natural and "supernatural" beings. By "supernatural" I don't mean a mystical religious idea, but rather just that much of the history of human culture involves humans making discoveries and inventions that allow humans to do things that they cannot do with their natural bodies. It puts them "above" nature, and above their natures. Really, this is looking at "freedom is the mastery of necessity" from a different angle. So, as we accumulate knowledge/science that allows us to master various aspects of the natural world , overcome limitations placed on us by nature, we are freed to do things that we want to, that are "self-consciously determined" rather than naturally determined. We can plan and carryout our plans, rather than be determined by outside natural forces or "inside" natural forces. The question that occurred to me about Democritus and Epicurus the last time Marx's thesis came up on "these lists" is weren't their ideas about the atom speculative and not empirically/experimentally based ? So, these "materialists" or naturalists were _speculative_, not empirical materialists. Maybe that just teaches me something about the definition of "materialist/naturalist". Or maybe rather than "empiricist" I mean "realist". Are they materialist realists, but speculative rather than empirical ? _______________________________________________ Marxism-Thaxis mailing list [email protected] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism-thaxis
