In a message dated 7/16/00 10:02:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
<< G'day Justin,
>Or any sort of philosopher. But he was analytical, among his other virtues.
Awright, comrade. You've said this twice now, so I'll chance a nibble.
Why was Marx not any sort of philosopher? Why, for instance, should *A
Contribution to the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right* and *The
German Ideology* not be considered philosophical works? I mean, he
'abandoned' philosophy only insofar as he'd moved on to investigating
political economy, didn't he? I mean, it's not as if he went on to refute
his stance on Hegel's irksomely privileged predicate or the 'materialist
conception of history'. It's just that he thought the job was done, innit?
Do tell. >>
The Marx of 1842-44 saw himself as doing a sort of philosophy, left-Hegelian
"criticical criticism." In 1845, Marx broke decisively from the idea that
criticism could do the job of liberation, and came to regard philosophy as
mere ideology, as he says quite clearly in the German Ideology, The
Manifesto, and everywhere else he discusses philosophy thorough the rest of
his life. He restained ana biding respect for Hegel, but he didn't do
Hegelian conceptual analysis. He did critique of political economy and
sociological analysis as well as a lot of political commentary. I would
consider giving up philosophy to do womerthing else to be abandoning
philosophy. He didn't givea philosophical explanation of why he did
that--unlike Rorty,w ho can't seem to get out of philosophy.
Daniel Brudney, Marx's Attempt to Escape Philosophy, adumbrates the
Feuerbachian roots of this turna way from philosophy. It is an excellent
book. I recommend it. --jks
