Whereas Hegel begins where Kant leaves off, Marx does much the same with Hegel. In essence, Hegel believes that Kantian idealism needs a push, as reason has the ability to transcend and thereby resolve the seeming contradications which it gets itself into. For Hegel, human consciousness is historical, meaning it constitutes itself differently at different times in human history, only to culminate in some absolute understanding. The time and nature of this culmination becomes an issue for Marx, who - by turning Hegel on his head - interprets history materially rather than ideally in arguing for the necessity of one final revolution: the rise of the working classes and the fall of the capitalist state.
4 comments:
A part of Hegel’s philosophy I thought was very interesting was the idea that the “I” in philosophical argument is just a metaphor. He states that no philosophical argument can come from an individual because once that argument is cognized, the individual becomes universal. The “I” is just a concept, and concepts are universal, thus the individual becomes universal. I think this is very interesting for a two-fold reason: He is able to avoid what almost all other philosophers do, that is relate things through the individual (their own thoughts), and this idea that the concept of “I” is universal is partly what enables Hegel to believe the concept that human consciousness is historical and can culminate in an “absolute understanding”. In other words, his stepping away from individual thought to universal thought allows him to create concepts that can be “overcome” and thus create new concepts (through the dialectic method) which can lead to, again, the “ultimate understanding”. This is how I understood his coming to an ultimate understanding, and I think it is really interesting, because philosophical arguments have always been viewed as non-linear, while he sees them as temporal and linear. I do not tend to believe that Hegel’s idea is correct (and according to Scruton many others do not), but I still think that it is very amazing that he created this new way to look at what philosophical arguments are.
I decided to comment solely on Marx just for the reason that I have to disagree with one of his points. Marx conveys the idea that man progresses through three stages: 1. that of natural man 2. private property and 3. communism. The stage I have a problem with is the second. Marx says that as man gains more and more private property they become detached from society as a whole. By owning your own property it transforms man from a pack mentality to an individual, self-sustaining one. This is the point i have to disagree with. Marx believes that private property leads to a consequent separation of man from man. Owning private property does not separate man from man but instead brings man closer to a united identity. Having property shows other men that you have interests and what those interests are but at the same time the introduction of private property separates man from animal thus giving man his own identity as a whole. As an example a neighborhood consists of many different houses that are owned by different people, but they all operate as one whole group to benefit the greater good of all their lives. Private property implies separation of the individual but constitutes a union of the human species as a whole.
Of all of Marx’s theories and ideas, the most frustrating for me is Marx’s attempt to connect the state of alienation to the institution of property. Feuerbach’s original contention was that man created a divine being out of his own perfections and by instilling those perfections in transcendent world, made them unobtainable. From this act man is alienated from his own nature. The idea of investing a divine being or objects with human powers and ceasing to see them in oneself seems plausible, but Marx stretches the idea too far. Marx attempts to connect the idea with the institution of property, even venturing to say that man “endows objects with a soul.” He aligns this with Feurbach’s theory because “the origin of the soul must be in us.” Even within a capitalist society, I doubt that man’s materialism would ever go so far as to endow any object or property with a soul. Marx sees our institution of property as an extreme of capitalist society, when it is still at the core satisfying a basic human need.
Before I took this class, I knew a little about Marx and his communist theory, but by no means did I know the core concepts behind his system. With this being said, I never viewed capitalism as an economic system that pitted man against man. I viewed capitalism as not as man working against each other, but as man working against himself, in a way, to make his way to the top. Of course there is competition between people, but I disagree with Marx saying that there is a “master” class and a “slave” class, and that we work in direct competition with each other in a capitalist system. I disagree with him, because maybe individuals in their individual line work against each other, but the individual parts actually work together to make the system work. I can understand with where he is coming from in his idea with the beginning of the IR and everything, but the system has developed into a far cleaner system, and thus as we see now is much better than communism.
I also thought it was interesting how he said we need to enjoy work because we are an inherently social being. It is so true how today so few people enjoy getting up in the morning and going to work, but I disagree with the reasons Marx states. Marx says it is like being a slave, going to work, but I believe that it is because our society has become so technologically advanced that we are lazier and expect things to be easier and done for us. Without going into great detail, our lives have gotten much easier since the IR, and this has spilled over into our work ethic as a people. I think Marx had a lot of good insights into the old capitalist system, and I am sure he would quibble with me that our system today is still not great, but I think that there have many great advances in our system that could flaw his reason for communism if he was around today.
Post a Comment