Re: [Marxism] The notion of absolute truth and marxisms - a question for the list

[brownh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Haines Brown)]

I'm glad to see you offer a thoughtful reply on this important,
although rather abstract, topic.

> Marx does not use this language. Rather, he speaks of totality, 'the
> whole', the 'truth of the whole', etc., especially in his early
> writings -- where Hegel's influence is still strong.

I have no reason to doubt he used the notion of the whole or totality
in his early writings, and my attribution to him of the term
"one-sided" was admittedly from distant memory.

However, I'm not sure we are disagreeing. To put it simply, my comment
was epistemological, and yours ontological. I was trying to address
whether we can grasp this whole in thought, not whether it objectively
exists. There is surely a "truth of the whole", but can we fully
comprehend it in thought?

> Where does Marx speak of Absolute truth? I don't think that you'll
> find a single word in Marx of the kind or that supports the kind of
> interpretation you offer.

I tried to make clear that I thought the notion of absolute truth was
foreign to Marx. Did you misunderstand me here?

I'm not sure to which of my "interpretations" you refer. That he
called the bourgeois view of things "one-sided"? If so, I can't
validate my recollection, unfortunately. I certainly made other points
that are not found in Marx, for I was more interested in the question
of "absolute truth" from a Marxist position than in Marx himself. As
you say, I doubt it is there.

> Moreover, Marxism is not a scientific hypothesis (in the sense you
> describe) and Marx himself never made any such claim.

You are probably correct (beside the trivial point that there was no
"Marxism" in his time) that Marx did not speak of his view of things
as a "hypothesis". However, would you not agree, for example, that his
understanding of the dynamics of capitalism was an "hypothesis"? The
meaning of "hypothesis" I had in mind here was "a proposal intended to
explain certain facts or observations". There are other meanings of
"hypothesis" that don't fit the situation so well, and perhaps you had
them in mind.

Perhaps you will explain just why you feel Marx's views do not
represent a "scientific hypothesis", or Marxism a "scientific
theory".

> Nor does he speak of one-sided realities. (Nor did he ever fault any
> philosopher or political economist for being 'one-sided', though he
> did fault several of them for being unable to crawl out of their
> 'bourgeois skin').

It could well be that my memory is playing tricks on me. However, I
didn't suggest that the "reality" was one sided, but only our view of
it. Again, my statement was epistemological, not ontological. Wouldn't
being unable to crawl out of one's bourgeois skin imply that one's
view of things is stunted or constrained by that skin?

> He does however speak of 'reality' as being 'this-sided' (in his
> exact language), meaning that people see things around them, from
> their own 'existential' position, through their own struggles, as
> well as through the lens of whatever they believe, hope, dream, etc.
> Regarding the question of ideology, or what Marxists often call
> false consciousness (another phrase Marx never used), I would side
> with people who see Marx's critique of bourgeois ideology as a form
> of immanent critique, rather than critique from an objective
> position.

> social reality is always invested with passion, hopes, dreams,

Is this not what I've been suggesting? People see things in terms of
their own situation, which acts like a lens on their perceptions of
it. And, if I understand it correctly, I would agree with your
point concerning "immanent critique". There is no "objective position"
from which to see things. The historian Levton Stavrianos once
suggested that the way to grasp world history was from a lunar vantage
point from which we might grasp the whole and not be distracted by
details. This I disagree with because the details must remain
operative, and all this supposed lunar vantage point does is hide them
from us so that we see only the larger changes. But we can't explain
those larger changes without recourse to the nitty-gritty
details. Does an immanent critique simply means we look at the real
potentials and limitations in a given situation and not impose some
abstract conception from outside it? Our passions, dreams, and hopes
certainly inform our actions, but those dreams arise out of the
material circumstances in which we live.

--

       Haines Brown
         KB1GRM
         ET1(SS) U.S.S. Irex 482

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism