>In other words, like Marx in 1844, Ken and his masters conceive of an
>unchanging
>human essence from which one can be "alienated." Within a few years Marx
>had
>consciously rejected this perspective and gone on to form an understanding
>of
>humans as social (i.e. historical) beings, having no human existence (even
>in
>theory, even in abstraction) independently of that historical actuality.
>Ken on the
>other hand remains with his feet solidly planted in eternity, outside
>history.
Marx came to view humans as entirely dependant on their historical period,
not that it just shaped their perspectives, but actually founded them? But
what about the biological parameters that all humans share, the structure of
our eyes, the number of fingers we are have on each hand, our physical
needs. Wouldnt these provide some commonality across historical periods?
Not identical, of course, Im not implying that, but a definite grouping of
shared characteristics that at some level allows one human to relate with
others, no matter their historical distance.
Jason Rice
>
>
________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com