DESPAIN at econ.sbs.utah.edu
Sat Feb 25 01:39:26 MST 1995
It seems that Dumain as taken a post by Fellini a bit too literal.
Has I read Fellini's post I believed him to be addressing not so much
the Lukcas and Engles in their interpretation but to be challenging
the distinction between Hegelian and Marxian dialectic as between
"idealism" and "materialism." I had said in a previous post that
Marx seems to use the *ideal* universal categories, which are in
reference to *real* particulars in a very similar way that Hegel is
using *idealism* in especially *Phenomenology of Spirit* (which can
be extended to it us in *Logic*). Now Fellini has suggested, via
Tony Smith, that the *material* may not be annihilated in Hegel,
(counter to the Collettian critique).
It is Colletti that maintains dialectic itself annihilates the
material, I like Dumain (though more humble), and like Fellini,
question Colletti's critique of dialectic and believe it to be a
misplaced critique. Moreover, I also agree with Fellini, and I
thought that Dumain had said something similar, that the difference
between Marx and Hegel may not necessarily be as easy and simple as
saying one to be a "materialist" and the other "idealist." Colletti
makes this argument, but it seems to me that Kant is much more an
idealist then is Hegel?
Furthermore, I am not at all sure that Lukcas or Engles are
philosophically committed with the dialectic. This is also the
critique that we have all offered toward Ollman's *Dialectical
Investigations*. Does it matter what or how the dialectic is
constituted with an ontology, and committed to a philosophical system,
or is this relative for dialectic as method, or is the dialectic
automatically committed to realism (materialism)?
University of Utah
despain at econ.sbs.utah.edu
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism