>Carrol might have a comment on "originality ". Orginality and creativity
>are highly valued in the academy, especially in the bourgeois situation
>with publish ORIGINAL STUFF or perish. But was originality what philosophy
>needed in the Marxist tradition ?
Well, Charles, if your view is that Marx, Engels, and Lenin discovered all the truths that need to be said,a nd that all that is left is for this truth to be popularized, we have very different standards of quality.
^^^^^^^
CB: Not eternal truths, but they have significantly exhausted the truths with respect to the philosophy of politics, economics and history , social theory, WITH RESPECT TO THE EPOCH OF CAPITALISM. I think there will be a need for new social theory once we end capitalism and launch socialism and then communism. There will be new contradictions, etc.
Let me be clear and emphatic ( and consistent with Marx and Engels and Lenin's attitude) Marxism has pretty much exhausted the relative truths of the social theory of this bourgeois period. Now what must happen is action based on that theory to change the world to communism. Then Marxism will have made many of its prominent current principles OBSOLETE. So, Marxism is the valid RELATIVE TRUTH in this mode of production.
Frankly this is just a consistent application of one of the things they discovered: That the philosophy of a period is a complex reflection of its mode of production. It also relates to why for Lenin the philosophical is political.
Anyway, if you describe or discuss a significant new concept of social philosophy , I will consider it. But I haven't seen any, not just from you, but from anybody.
Natural science is a different story.
>There is a definite sense from Engels that closure to the old philosophical
>lines was what was needed. Engels' saw old philosophy as the queen of the
>other sciences coming to an end , and formal logic and dialectics remaining
>with the various sciences. In other words, this would imply no "creative "
>development of the old philosophical traditions, rather their study as
>historical elements in the development of dialectical materialism.
Evema ssuming that you are correct here, what was needed was creative development of a new philosophy. Although I comment that MArx thought that philosophy was over altogether.
^^^^^^^^^
CB: Maybe give some more on "creative development of a new philosophy". I actually said something similar in my ":Activist Materialism and the End of Philosophy" . But I guess my attitude is "positivist " : show me the new philo.
We agree on your second statement.
^^^^^^
>
>Marxism is unapologetically non-pluralist and non-eclectic in this regard.
Says you. There is no one "Marxism." Marxism is a vast and varigated tradition with many tendencies.
^^^^^^^
CB: Ok but wouldn't you characterize Marx himself as setting an example of , oh what would you call it, somewhat strict and "rigorous" about his Marxism ?
^^^^^
Of course, each thinker thinks he or he is correct, but that does not mean that one is not pluralist or eclectic, that uis, tolerant of other approaches (thoughof course critical of them) and willing to learn from them. Most of Marxism has been like that. Lukacs learned from Weber as well as Lenin, Gramsci from Croce, Althusser from Saussure, Sartre from Heidegger, Sidney Hook from Dewey, G.A. Cohen from Gilbert Ryle. Soviet Marxism porclaimed itself to be the only truth, and had the KGB to back that claim up. But that is not a desirable way to settle a philosophical argument. ("'Shuddup,' he explained." --Daymon Runyon)
^^^^^^^^
CB: Well, famously Marx tried to extract rational kernels from his polemical opponents. But I do think that Marx did set the example of a fairly unique line. He molded the extractions from others such that his product isn't exactly accurately described as eccletic or liberal or pluralist. Am I wrong about that ? Maybe I am paying too much attention to how many people he calls philistines and dunderheads.
^^^^^^^
>This issue is a PHILOSOPHICAL difference between bourgeois philosophy and
>Marxist philosophy. It becomes a circular argument to say Soviet philosophy
>was not pluralist in terms of all the historical philosophical traditions.
Not the point. The point is rather that Soviet philosophy expressed its claim to dominance with the backing of the police, and that lead, inevitably, to its intellectual death.
^^^^^^ CB: I don't think it suffered intellectual death. I think you overstate the role of the police with respect to philosophy.
^^^^^
> Marxism' position is against philosophy for philosophy's sake,
Who appointed you to speak for Marxism?
^^^^^^^
CB: I don't make any more claims than you do to say "what Marxism is". This is a losing argument on this thread, because I could go back and find ten times that you say "Marxism is this" or "Marxism is that".
^^^^^^
What is "philosophy for philosophy's sake"?
^^^^^^^
CB: Philosophizing without recognizing that the philosophical is political and social. This is why Lenin thought philosophy was poltically important more than you do. He didn't think philosophy is for philosophy's sake ,but for social and political sake.
^^^^^^^
Marxists have had many positions on philosophy. Marx bought Feuerbach's line that philosophy was already over,a nd he didn't do it after 1844, at least officially. Engels didn't; he was happy to do metaphysics for its own sake because he thought it was fun and true. Lots of other Marxists have had different views of all sorts of nuanced natures on the matter.
^^^^^^^
CB: Engels says philo is over too. Logic an dialectics remains.
^^^^^
>so the standards and values of the western academy such as creativity and
>pluralism are explicitly critiqued by the philsophy itself . All of this
>must be taken into account in judging Soviet philosophy by these very
>Western standards
A simple question, Charles: do you think that philosophical orthodoxy should be determined by a central political authority and enforced by the police?
^^^^^^^
CB: That's a compound question.
What's the significant difference between being determined by a central authority or a decentralized authority ? The police would be appropriate only in extreme case where someone actually is trying to foment counterrevolution throough philosophical teaching
As I say, I don't see much need for creativity in the philosophy of politics, history and social issues until we get communism. To the extent that philosophy might have an impact in politics and economics , I don't think bourgeois philosophy should be promoted in the socialist academy.
. . . >
>CB: Note the Western philosophers do not know Soviet philo and dialectical
>materialism, but the Soviets studied the Western schools.
Some Western philosophers know Soviet philosophy, like my OSU predecessor
Jim Scanlan, Jim F., and me. And the fact is that it's jsut less interesting
because most of it isn't very good. There's less reason to know it.
>
>By the way, there are Cuban, Chinese, Viet Namese etc. philosophers who are
>just as smart as the Western crews today.
Such as? I don't doubt that the brains are there, the question is, what sort of work are they doing with them?
^^^^^^^
CB; I'll get back to you with a name or two and articles.