>>> "James Heartfield"
.
Is there an unchanging human essence in Marx? Only in the most abstract terms: men rework nature and in doing so enter into definite relations one to each other. But that is so vague as to be a truism. Once you go further and specify the social relations that men enter into, you are pulled in the direction of what is distinctive about men in different epochs.
^^^^ CB: Humans have culture. No other species do. So, the unique human essence or species-being is culture.
The confusion enters in part because a main project of human culture down through the millenia has been to transcend human natural or biological limitations. So, a lot of culture is super-organic or "super-natural" .
^^^^
Of course it is true that men never finally escape their human biology (only alter it), but that would be what was not their human essence but their animal essence. Defining the human essence it seems to me must escape us since it is necessarily without limitations, rather like trying to define freedom, which would only be to remove its scope.
Maoist Classicist scholar George Thomson's book The Human Essence is very good on this, but not convincing in the end.
___________________________________ http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com