In response to Justin's comment, I made the following joke: since those
who regularly employ the term "essentialism" are anti-Enlightenment, should
it be a surprise that their discussion isn't enlightening?
responding to this, Mine wrote:
actually, you are describing yourself, since you "misrepresented" the
marxist position as built upon false dichotomies like biological versus
cultural determinism.
I don't understand why the word "misrepresented" is in quotation marks.
I didn't know that one could refer to "the marxist position" as if all
Marxists had exactly the same position on this issue -- or any other.
Marxism isn't a dogma, a bunch of formulas, or a catechism. Rather, it's a
debate (though there are important agreements amongst Marxists).
I didn't apply a "dichotomy" between biological vs. cultural determinism,
because there are other alternatives, including a dialectical and dynamic
view of the sort I would advocate.
Are you trying to insult me?
marxist position is not essentialist. it is dialectial and dynamic,which
is what makes it a very "enlightenment" thinking..
That's easy to say, but hard to actually do. I was trying to start to
develop that view.
The connection between Marx and the Enlightenment is complex. He learned a
lot from Kant (et al.) but also was quite critical of the Enlightenment
perspective. He added to (and subtracted from) the Enlightenment
perspective(s).
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
