I am a few pages shy of finishing the book and will continue my installments as soon as I can squeeze in the time.
Skepticism is one of those issues in philosophy that in my view--John Searle agrees with me, too--is dead for the 21st century. It's the flip side of the apriorism of traditional philosophy that is no longer an interesting question. I did a quick read of Forster's book on Hegel and skepticism a few years back, and I've heard at least one talk on the subject, but I didn't absorb Forster's presentation properly the first time around. Skepticism seems to me irrelevant to Marx as to Engels; they basically dismissed it. As for epistemology and Marxism, well, Marxism contributes pieces of the puzzle to epistemology as do other trends. Marx's interest in the subject is invested in his struggle first against the Young Hegelians and then against the bourgeois political economists, with swipes at others along the line, like Proudhon and Comte. As new challenges arose from various philosophical and quasi-scientific quarters, Engels tackled other questions, quite perceptively. Later on, in the German Social Democratic movement, Kautsky, Luxemburg and others tackled certain questions as best they knew how. In Russia, Plekhanov did likewise, and he proved to have a lasting influence. And one can go on with Lenin in 1908, and a new phase after the war beginning with Lukacs, and so on. Many of these interventions had their up sides and their down sides. Note, however, that critiques have always been more productive than the codification and defense of total, finished systems. Marxists have intersected other departments of knowledge and other philosophical claims from time to time, sometimes in the way of critique, others in attempts at synthesis. But the historical development of ideas is highly uneven. For example, the issues which this book enters around have nothing to do with what marxism was up to. If one were to throw a materialist into the mix, what basis of interaction would there even have been given the state of affairs in the 1920s? Marcuse I suppose could have thrown his two cents in, from a quasi-Heideggerian view at least. Adorno was I think, a bit too young; he doesn't come on the scene until 1931. But there were certain developments in Marxism, particularly in its philosophical wing--dialectical materialism--and other areas that as far as I can tell, did not intersect at the time. And when it happened, the authority built up in the Soviet Union and its international influence was based on a partial and defective solidified tradition and set of habits. I'll get back to the book as soon as I can. I'm also reading Macherey's IN A MATERIALIST WAY, which is frustrating, as most French crap is. At 05:32 PM 6/19/2008, Phil Walden wrote: >Epistemological questions and questions about how we have knowledge of the >world have been brilliantly confronted by Hegel. Marxists who want to know >about epistemology must start with a serious study of Hegel. Hegel tackled >the problem of scepticism - both Cartesian and Pyrrhonic - better than any >other philosopher to date. Start with the Phenomenology of Spirit, then try >to wade through Science of Logic (only a proportion of which is currently >understood even by the best scholars), then read the Encyclopedia Logic, >then read Lukacs's 'The Young Hegel'. A good simplified guide to the >Phenomenology of Spirit is Robert Stern's guide in the Routledge >Philosophers Guidebook series. > >Phil Walden > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of rasherrs >Sent: 19 June 2008 20:47 >To: Forum for the discussion of theoretical issues raised by Karl Marxand >the thinkers he inspired >Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Parting of the Ways > >If marxism contains a significant philosophical dimension then it should >have attempted to establish the nature of knowledge and how certain that >knowledge. Questions such as how we have knowledge of the world have not >been adequately answered by marxism. Not even a serious attempt to answer >these questions. This is just what Bertrand Russell sought the answers to. > >Paddy Hackett >-- >----- Original Message ----- >From: "CeJ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <marxism-thaxis@lists.econ.utah.edu> >Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 2:47 PM >Subject: Re: [Marxism-Thaxis] Parting of the Ways > > >WL writes:>>All the various Marxists writers, with few exceptions - >like you, are partly >to blame by defining Marxism as a philosophy. Nowhere can one find an ounce >of philosophy in Marx most famous statements like the passages from the >"Preface to A Contribution to A Critique . . ." where he speaks of >the mode of _______________________________________________ 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
