Re: Exchanges on Marxism and ecology

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> David Bruce <dave_bruce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 10/21/99 02:31PM >>>
Charles Brown wrote:

 >>Engels projected the end of philosophy, all that would remain is formal
logic and dialectics. By Lenin's time, isn't philosophy embarrassing thinking ?

What Engels actually wrote was (Ludwig Feurbach and the end of classical
German philosophy"):

"For philosophy, which has been expelled from nature and history, there
remains only the realm of pure thought, so far as it is left: the theory of
the laws of the thought process itself, logic and dialectics."

. . . and this, of course, includes the great epistemological thinkers,
such as Kant, Descartes etc. Engels did not say "philosophy is dead" but
that philosophy no longer had an investigative role in the material
sciences. I can't fault that. Engels actually said elsewhere (I can't find
the original right now) that, in order to learn to think in concepts and
categories, it is necessary to study their evolution, referring
specifically to the history of philosophy.

((((((((((

Charles: I agree with the sentiment of your post, except I didn't say Engels 
said
"philosophy is dead".  Also, what you quote is not the same thing you say 
either. In
other words, you elaborate as I did.  Furthermore, Lenin also proposed studying
Hegel's _Phenomenology of Mind_ and reading the historical philosophers to train
thinking in socialism  ( A society of materialist friends of Hegelian 
dialectics or
something like that  But under this thread , that doesn't go very well with 
labelling
Lenin's book on philosophy embarassing ( although he didn

I think Engels and Lenin's idea is that Marxist philosophy can only be fully
understood as the culmination of this history , not that current thinkiing in 
concepts
should undo the critiques of Kant, et al. , and take up Kant et al. as in the 
old
discipline of philosophy. Nor would Engels statement imply that Lenin's 
philosophical
work is "embarassing".

((((((((((((
It is worth noting that Marx and Engels often refer to "philosophy" when
they IMHO mean specifically the post-Hegelian milieu of their youth, most
famously in the eleventh of the "Theses on Feurbach". Their colleagues from
that time are often referred to as "the philosophers" - something it suits
a lot of folk to forget. Remember that the Theses were "notes hurriedly
scribbled down".

(((((((((((

Charles: Yes , they were hurriedly scribbled down, but Engels thought them worth
publishing. I think " the philosophers" in the 11thTheses refer to Kant , at 
least,
too, and he wasn't from the post-Hegelian milieu. Your aren't really  proposing 
that
the "philosophers" of the 11th Thesis only refer to post-Hegelians ? The First 
Thesis
refers to the chief defect of all previous materialisms, Feuerbach's included. 
This
isn't confined to Feuerbach, but includes the British and French materialists 
who are
pre-Hegelian ( See Engels' discussion of materialists in _Socialism: Utopian and
Scientific_)

(((((((((((((


"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in their various ways:
the point however is to change it."

has nothing at all to do with the "death" of philosophy. It's not that Marx
does or does not accept that idea - it's about something else altogether -
his break from the "Young Hegelians". As the old saying goes, "What's that
got to do with the price of eggs?".

(((((((((

Charles: You are the one who coined "the death of philosophy". I'd call it more 
like
the "end of philosophy as we had known it."

I'd say you are dead wrong ( sorry) on narrowing Marx's reference to 
"philosophers" to
Young Hegelians.  The 11th Thesis is a reiteration of the 1st in which Marx 
breaks
with all previous materialists ( Hegelians weren't materialists) because they 
weren't
active, i.e. they weren't aiming to change the world ( as in the 11th), but 
passive
contemplators. Of course, idealists like Hegel and Hegelians were active , but 
not in
the real world. I mean , Feuerbach, who the Theses are directly critiquing was a
materialist, had made the key break with Hegel and Hegelians, and his fault was
passivity. The materialists prior to Hegel and Hegelians were passive 
contemplators
too.

The practical-critical activity of the First thesis is the "changing the world" 
of the
11th.

 >>What are the specific embarassments of *MEC* ?

For me, that Lenin knew little or nothing about the "realm of pure thought"
or "the theory of the laws of the thought process itself" (epistemology)
but insisted on writing about it. It certainly makes me blush, it's
philistine crap and unworthy of him.

((((((((((((

Charles: What !? Like what did he get wrong on epistemology ( the theory of 
knowledge)
, because this is still not very specific ? "Philistine crap" does not specify 
the
philosophical issues.

By the way, have you read the 3rd Thesis on Feuerbach ?Does Engels on 
epistemology
make you blush too ?  Who do you say is the leading philosopher on the "realm 
of pure
thought" and "the theory of the thought process itself " ?

Hey, seriously. Lets have this debate.


 >>And who are the philosophers since Hegel or Feuerbach who have gotten
beyond them ?

Fair question. Marx for one.

((((((((((((((

Charles: Agree. :>)

(((((((

 See also Engels' critique of Feurbach.

((((((((((((

Charles: Seen it already. Lenin is still looking good. Lenin's epistemology is 
almost
entirely based and development of Engels. He largely applies Engels to the 
latest
neo-Kantians.  Things-in-themselves to things-for-us. Dialectic of relative and
absolute truth. Practice as the test of truth ( See the Third Thesis on F).
Matter defined as objective reality.

((((((((((((


 As a
philosopher or at least as a historian of philosophy, Ilyenkov knocks spots
off most of the others for my money.

((((((((((((

Charles: In _Dialectical Logic_ Ilyenkov is following Lenin. The first words in 
the
book are " The task bequethed to us by V.I.Lenin, of creating a Logic ( with a
captial"L"), i.e. of a systematically developed exposition of dialectics 
understood as
the logic and theory of knowledge of materialism, has become particularly acute
today..."Ilyenkov doesn't seem to blush at Lenin.

(((((((((((((((


Timpanaro, I agree. Some Marcuse, but
not much. Karl Korsch.  And so on. But they are mostly commentators rather
than original thinkers. It's not been a great time for profound innovation,
IMHO. The best minds have gone into the natural sciences or worked in
linguistic/analytic philosophy, with moves me not a jot.

(((((((((((((

Charles: So no original thinkers on epistemology since ? Marx and Engels ? And 
Lenin
gets them wrong ?

On Lenin's innovations_Marxist-Leninist Philosophy_ (Progress 1987) page 26 
says:

"(Lenin) gave a philosophical defintion of matter, substantiated the 
objectivity of
motion, space and time, concretised the doctrine of development and its laws,
elaboated the theory of knowledge, gave a philosophical generalization of late 
19th
Century and early 20th century discoveries in natual science, substantiated the 
need
for unit between philosophers and naturalists."

Again what are the specifics of epistemology that Lenin gets wrong ?

I thought the best minds had gone into law , like Lenin and Fidel. :>)


CB