dialectic

Ralph Dumain rdumain at igc2.igc.apc.org
Mon Feb 20 22:48:36 MST 1995


>I am surrounded by economists and not philosophiers.

Poor guy!  They don't call it the dismal science for nothing.

>Where Marx says he begins with the concrete chaotic whole moves
>to the abstract, and from the abstract to the concrete, now in
>an unified rational whole.  The 6 page passage seems to me
>undeniblly Hegelian.The problem is then to demonstrate how this
>Hegelian method emerges in the work of Marx.

Your exposition of the connection is fascinating, though I am not
in a position to judge it.  I encourage a thorough examination of
this question, with bibliographical appurtenances too.  People
assume too much in terms of genealogy: A learned this from B. One
should establish, not assume, that Marx learned this from Hegel
alone, and not from, say, what he learned about the scientific
method which may not be limited to the philosophical problematic
of the Young Hegelians.

And then examine what differentiates Marx from Hegel if anything
in their approach to abstraction and scientific idealization,
teleology aside.

One must also ask why Hegel seldom practiced what he preached.  So
much of what he wrote smacks of a-priorism and empirical
deductions from poorly digested abstractions, which he would admit
along with Kant as in principle impermissible.  I am thinking of
some of the more egregiously prejudiced aspects of Hegel's view of
history -- the non-historic peoples, the stages of historical
development, etc.  The flaw is not only lack of empirical
knowledge of the world at a particular place and time, and not
only ethnocentrism, but a fundamental metaphysical or
methodological flaw that Hegel committed while Marx did not.  So
what's the difference between them?


     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list