The scope and importance of the present work is manifest even to a casual glance; the actual heights of scholarly penetration and disinterestedness to which it rises can only be appreciated by the detailed examination of its text. From this latter examination, it readily appears that we are confronted with no ad hoc construction, no work cut, so to say, to fit a present need, however valid and cogent; but a work reflecting a near lifetime of application and animated by (...) a relentless devotion to documentary truth. For this reason, any account of it must, in simple justice, begin with a brief historical notice of the work itself. (shrink)

: Studies of Chinese dialectical materialism have long neglected the important philosophical dimension of Hegelian thought and its influence on Chinese Marxism. This essay examines the work of Zhang Shiying of Beijing University, whose studies of Hegel's works on dialectical logic in the 1950s sought to clarify the nature of Hegel's speculative dialectic and its relation to dialectical materialism. Like Lenin before him, Zhang believed that Hegel's works on logic offered a more profound reflection (...) on materialism than had previously been recognized by Marxist critics of German idealism. Zhang's sensitive reading of both Hegel's Science of Logic and the Encyclopedia Logic highlights the problem of the speculative dialectic and negativity. Examined here is Zhang's analysis of the Hegelian dialectic in light of contemporary accounts of the role of Hegelian negativity in poststructuralist thought. (shrink)

This article offers an analysis of dialectical materialism. The author, being a supporter of this theory, offers a self-critical assessment of its foundations. He argues that the predecessors of Marxism constructed their systems with the confidence that they were building the true and only true philosophy. This utopian idea shared by Marx, Engels, and their successors was refuted by subsequent developments in philosophy. Indeed, philosophy by its very nature is pluralistic and interminable. Self-critical Marxism must recognize the legitimacy (...) not only of dialectical materialism, but also of other philosophies no matter how much they may differ in their content. This is supported by analysis of the main categories and problems of dialectical materialism—the laws of dialectics, matter, evolution, consciousness, and truth. (shrink)

Studies of Chinese dialectical materialism have long neglected the important philosophical dimension of Hegelian thought and its influence on Chinese Marxism. This essay examines the work of Zhang Shiying of Beijing University, whose studies of Hegel's works on dialectical logic in the 1950s sought to clarify the nature of Hegel's speculative dialectic and its relation to dialectical materialism. Like Lenin before him, Zhang believed that Hegel's works on logic offered a more profound reflection on (...) materialism than had previously been recognized by Marxist critics of German idealism. Zhang's sensitive reading of both Hegel's Science of Logic and the Encyclopedia Logic highlights the problem of the speculative dialectic and negativity. Examined here is Zhang's analysis of the Hegelian dialectic in light of contemporary accounts of the role of Hegelian negativity in poststructuralist thought. (shrink)

Two points of contact are explored between contemporary philosophy of science and Dialectical Materialism. The first point deals with the interaction view of metaphor as an exemplification of the law of the unity of opposites. The contradiction is then noted between the strategy and tactics of much analytical philosophy and the lesson to be learnt from this account of metaphor. The concern to change category habits into category disciplines rules out the process of conceptual change of the interaction (...) view. G. A. Paul's dismissal of Lenin's theory of reflection is then criticized in the light of the interaction view. (shrink)

It has often been pointed out that the Marxian theory of value contains some inconsistencies, usually in relation to the concept of abstract labour. However, the contradiction between the concept of labour and the concept of validity with which Marx operates in Capital has never been discussed. A detailed analysis shows that this concept of validity refers to the process of abstraction which is carried out by the participants of the exchange process. Only the rigorous comprehension of this process of (...) abstraction can illuminate that for which the concept of abstract labour was developed: the unity and universality of value. On this basis, the paper criticises the Marxian development of the money-form and presents an alternative approach that builds on the aforementioned concept of validity. This concept is formulated in more depth by recourse to the works of Hegel, Simmel and Adorno. Furthermore, the paper reconsiders the dialectical development of categories in the light of this alternative conception of the money-form as totality and abstraction. Finally, the distinction between simple circulation and the process as a whole is explored and it is argued that, according to the novel reading proposed, it acquires a fundamental significance. (shrink)

Examining the still underexplored elements in educational theorist Paulo Freire's work, this essay begins from his claim that problem-posing pedagogy works as a “kind of psychoanalysis.” Situating Freire between the critical philosophical and psychoanalytic traditions, Alex Armonda offers a new reading of the problem-posing dialectic, mapping parallels between Freirean pedagogy and psychoanalysis on the nature of the subject/object relation, while thinking new connections across the philosophical-analytical divide on questions of being, subjectivity, and politics. First, he discusses the onto-epistemic specificity of (...) “the human” in Freire and situates it in relation to the split subject of the unconscious in Lacanian psychoanalysis. Second, he presents the subject/object encounter in Freire, demonstrating that a similar notion of the unconscious informs Freire's account and plays a central role in his understanding of the banking and problem-posing pedagogical experiences. Advancing a Lacanian reading of the problem-posing encounter, Armonda concludes by reflecting on key differences between the dialectical-materialist and psychoanalytical interpretations of Freire, and how the latter opens new perspectives on “reality” as an inconsistent space of contest, generating alternative ways of conceiving political subjectivity and the possibility of radical social transformation in the present. (shrink)

"Mitchell Franklin (1902-1986) is described by the Buffalo Law Review as the foremost Marxist legal philosopher in the English-speaking world. In these selected writings, Franklin, a professor of law at Tulane University for 37 years, discusses how the development of natural law from an idealist to a materialist concept in the transition from feudalism to capitalism is reflected in the drafting of the U.S. Constitution and its interpretation today" --Publisher's summary.

This book articulates Soviet philosopher Boris Hessen's groundbreaking analysis of socioeconomic development, technological progress, and natural scientific theory; reassesses Hessen's legacy to the history and philosophy of science; and reflects on Hessen's enduring significance in today's world of social inequality and technological progress.

In a time interval of four years, from 1982 to 1986, Louis Althusser wrote a number of short papers, which were all published posthumous. Short papers are typical for Althusser’s work, much more than every other art of writings, but the main characteristic of his last papers lies neither in their form nor in the method – it lies rather in a radically new approach to the politics. During the sixties, Althusser holds a point of view according to which the (...) dialectical materialism represents the philosophical core of the Marxism and the historical materialism corresponds to its science. In the eighties, he changes this theoretical approach in favour of a “philosophy of the encounter”, which in his opinion reflects the non-teleological principle of materialism in far more exact way, than the dialectical materialism which becomes logocentric and idealistic. Dialectical materialism will be completely rejected, and a new term will step into its place: the aleatoric materialism, a materialism of contingency and emptiness that radically rejects any precedence of the sense over the phenomena. The following text pursues this radical late turn in Althusserian understanding of philosophy, primarily in its relation to politics and ideology. (shrink)

Polemical writings against the socioeconomic theories of Karl Marx, 1818-1883.

The approach taken here is to begin to understand the focus from abstract to concrete in learning to master the principles of methodology, which are different from Western methods and procedures. This methodology is opposed to the empiricist approach of establishing rules and procedures from the concrete to the abstract. The initial discussion revolves around an explanation of the use of metaphor, metatheory, and psychology understood as a non-classical science. There is then a discussion on dialectics, dialectical synthesis, and (...) metafacts. The core of the article is dedicated to a metatheoretical description Vygotsky uses as an abstract outline of possible guidelines in better understanding how to implement a model for non-classical psychology, using the example of a table being reflected in a mirror. A represents the actual table, while a represents the object being reflected in the mirror, and X represents the processes that take place in the mirror . Therefore, Vygotsky concludes that both A and X are real processes and that a is their apparent, i.e., unreal result. The reflection does not exist, but both the table and the light exist. The result is that the objective existence of X and A independent of a is a dogma of materialistic psychology. There is a discussion on the interfunctional relationships of importance in such a model, and the role of consciousness, and language. The focus of this metatheoretical framework supports Vygotsky's intentions of reaching individual inner freedom and freedom of action, together with Spinoza's social determinism. (shrink)

The magical number three has provided the template for this comparative study of Freudian psycho-analysis and Husserlian phenomenology. "Three" should be considered the number of dialectics; the method in the study to let three distinct thematisations succeed each other should find its legitimation in dialectics. The relationship between psycho-analysis and phenomenology as that between two dialectic theories might well call for a dialectic interpretation. It should be difficult from a straightforward and unambiguous interpretation to give full credit to the rich (...) and equivocal meaning of psycho-analysis and phenomenology. I hope to have shown in the presentation above, that it is possible by accentuating different sides of the two scientific disciplines to reach different conclusions regarding their relationship. For a full account of this relationship these different conclusions should be placed together and viewed in their internal coherence as a dialectical unity. Thus none of the three sections of the text should be considered apart from the others. In the first section of the paper, the first thematisation, I tried to spell out the discrepancies between Freud and Husserl as clearly as possible. The point of departure here was the Freudian notion of the "psychical apparatus," and Husserl's doctrine of "intentional consciousness." The models built around these central notions can be shown to have a paradigmatic meaning for the development of Freud's and Husserl's psychological projects. Conceiving the subject as psychical apparatus, Freud thought it possible to make psychology a natural science. The subject could be treated like a mechanical apparatus, that is a machine admitting the general laws of motion. - In contrast, Husserl thought psychology should depart from natural science in its scientific selfunderstanding, and join the humanities instead. Psychology's departure from natural science, Husserl found legitimized in the subject's essential character of intentional consciousness. According to Husserl, man as a conscious being could not be reduced to a thing in the natural world. On the contrary, the aprioric basis for the world should be found in intentional consciousness, which constitutes the "world" as a meaningful coherence related to the subject. Freud's and Husserl's conceptions of psychology were traced to historical roots in respectively positivism, naturalism and mechanical materialism on the one hand, and rationalism, humanism and idealism on the other. In this first interpretation the relationship between psycho-analysis and phenomenology seemed to be antithetical, the two theoretical projects representing opposite poles with regard to cartesian dualism. Although in some ways caricaturing the theories in this one-sided interpretation, I tried to show, that such interpretation is possible with bases in the texts of Freud and Husserl. The decided one-sidedness of the first thematisation should, however, be balanced by the competing interpretation in the second section of the paper. In the second thematisation, I tried to show, that both psycho-analysis and phenomenology in their concrete psychological projects went beyond their points of departure. Although Freud as a scientist of the 19th century naturally found his theoretical language in the successful natural sciences, from which his scientific career started, he decisively broke with this frame of reference in his descriptions of the pathological problems from his clinical praxis. In contrast to the abstract metapsychology of the psychical apparatus, Freud in his clinical psychology departed from mechanism in his attempts to interpret the meaning of the patient's neurotic symptom. The clinical attitude of Freud might resemble phenomenologists' openness towards the meaning of the phenomena, and the case-histories of Freud often read like clinical analyses stemming from existential- phenomenological psychiatrists. - Correspondingly, although Husserl started from the tradition of German philosophy of consciousness, also he can be seen to go beyond the premises of his wellsprings. Starting with a notion of intentionality as consciousness's active positing meaningful objects, Husserl later was led to consider a deeper level of intentionality, a "functioning intentionality," that would situate the subject in a "world" prior to any thematic perceptual act. With the notion of functional intentionality and its further development in Merleau-Ponty's philosophy of the "body-subject," phenomenology seems to have come close to the Freudian doctrine of the unconscious. From this second interpretation it seemed to follow, that a meeting between psycho-analysis and phenomenology should be possible, by cutting off the mechanistic parts from psychoanalysis and the idealistic parts from phenomenology. The hindrance for such meeting should apparently be found in the divergent theoretical prejudices stemming from the ideological climates in which the theories were hatched. None of these two apparently contradictory interpretations, that of the first and second thematisation, should, however, rule out the other. To the question which interpretation is the right one, we should answer "both... and," or perhaps better "Neither... nor." Freud and Husserl in fact held contradictory views in their explicit scientific self-understanding. On the other hand, much of the controversy was caused by theoretical prejudices not essential to the central enterprise of psycho-analysis and phenomenology. And yet, the theoretical work of Freud and Husserl should be considered in its entirety, not omitting parts that do not fit the interpretative context. Freud's mechanistic theories must be read in connection with his clinical/phenomenological psychology, Husserl's doctrine of transcendental consciousness together with his concrete analyses of the world and the body. Freud sticked to his mechanistic metaphors throughout his life, not just because mechanic materialism was his scientific point of departure, but also because he found the models of the psychical apparatus useful to picture the subject-matter of psycho-analysis, the unconscious as it is discovered by the analytic method. Correspondingly, Husserl found in transcendental idealism a metaphysical horizon apparently suited for his main theoretical project, to un-cover by phenomenological reflexion man in his free and conscious being. In this way Freud's materialism and Husserl's idealism might find their limited justification, not in the absolutistic sense set forth in the first section, but in relation to their weighting different aspects of the subject/object dialectic of man. This point of view I tried to explicate in the third section of this paper. In the subject/object dialectic Freud seems to underline man's existence as object, his being ruled by the mechanic, the irrational, the infantile, the unconscious. In contrast, Husserl underlines man's existence as subject, his free and conscious openness towards the world and the future. This difference I characterized with the notions of Ricoeur as respectively an "archeology" and a "teleology" of the subject. And yet the difference between Freud and Husserl is that of a weighting different sides of the subject/object dialectic, not of an exclusive thematisation of man as either subject or object. Freudian archaeology is supplemented by an implicit teleology, Husserlian teleology by an implicit archeology. On the background of such interpretation the relationship between psycho-analysis and phenomenology should be seen neither as the polarity of the first thematisation, nor as the synthesis of the second. Psycho-analysis and phenomenology both contradict and imply each other in a relationship that should be termed dialectical. With this third interpretation the paper ended. At last I noted that the problems raised by the controversy on the subject/object dialectic of man should not easily be solved. Instead, the question "what is man" should have to be answered continuously in a concrete historical reflextion or dialogue. Yet I think it safe to conclude, that any psychological consideration has to take into consideration, both man's archeological and his teleological features, thus not allowing the one perspective completely to rule out the other. (shrink)

In his very influential book, History and Class Consciousness, Lukács argued that Engels illegitimately extended Marx's dialectical method beyond the social realm to the realm of nature and in doing so replaced Marx's dialectical theory of knowledge (in which subject and object are reciprocally trans formed) with a contemplative reflection theory (in which subject and object "persist in their old, rigid opposition").1 Since then, and very much in the same spirit, many others have located the difference between (...) Marx and Engels not in their treatments of historical materialism or method but in Engels' acceptance of a dialectic of nature and a theory of reflection.2 I shall try to argue precisely the opposite, namely, that their differences are to be located in the former, far more than in the latter, areas. (shrink)

Herein, I distinguish between two basic, fundamental conceptions of the sorts of negativity associated with subjectivity throughout modern European philosophy up to the present: on the one hand, a mystical vision in which the unexplained explainer of a mysterious nothingness is appealed to as a ground-zero given; on the other hand, a materialist idea according to which the real privative causes of absences and antagonisms are internally generated out of precisely specifiable natural and human historical processes involving accumulations of multitudes (...) of concrete elements and features. Arguing against the former as complacently resting upon the dogma of a “myth of the non-given” (to borrow a phrase from Wilfrid Sellars so as to refer to the notion of the factical givenness of negativity as itself non-given), I plead for the latter and sketch a dialectical-speculative “more is less” dynamic in which surpluses of positivity immanently give rise to negativities. This dynamic is an essential part of a non-reductive materialism including within itself lacks and conflicts as causally efficacious factors. I flesh out these lines of thought through reinterpretations of the transition from the organic to the anthropological in Hegel as well as the mirror stage as an account of ego- and subject-formation in Lacan. (shrink)

Abstractvan Fraassen (The empirical stance, 2002) contrasts the empirical stance with the materialist stance. The way he describes them makes both of them attractive, and while opposed they have something in common for both stances are scientific approaches to philosophy. The difference between them reflects their differing conceptions of science itself. Empiricists emphasise fallibilism, verifiability and falsifiability, and also to some extent scepticism and tolerance of novel hypotheses. Materialists regard the theoretical picture of the world as matter in motion as (...) a true and explanatory account and insist on not taking ‘spooky’ entities or processes seriously as potential explanations of phenomena that so far lie outside the scope of successful science. The history of science shows us that both stances have been instrumental in the achievement of progress at various times. It is therefore plausible for a naturalist to suggest that science depends for its success on the dialectic between empiricism and materialism. A truly naturalist approach to philosophy ought then to synthesise them. Call the synthesized empiricist and materialist stances ‘the scientistic stance’. This paper elaborates and defends it. (shrink)

This paper seeks to utilize mathematical methods to formally define and analyze the metaethical theory that is ethical reductionism. In contemporary metaethics, realist-antirealist debates center on the ontology of moral properties. Our research reflects an innovative methodology using methods from Graph Theory to clarify a debated position of Meta-Ethics, previously encumbered by intrinsic vagueness and ambiguity. We employ rigorous mathematical formalism to symbolize, parse, and thus disambiguate, particular philosophical questions regarding ethical ontological materialism of the reductionist variety. In this (...) paper, we seek to revisit the once vexed question regarding the multiple-realizability of moral properties by employing the mathematical machinery of hypergraphs and category theory. The utilization of Mathematical formalism offers explanatory flexibility specifically to the hypothesis that there are potentially an infinite number of unrelated subvening facts which may constitute supervening moral properties. We by no means have attempted to settle the argument on the side of naturalism, but have only identified an obstacle to rigorous argumentation, and pioneered a method to eliminate it. We hope our research will be of interest to both the Analytic Philosophy and the Applied Mathematics communities, and will help facilitate discussions of metaethics, particularly pertaining to ethical naturalism. We believe there is much research yet to be done. (shrink)

Theodor Adorno’s philistine functions as the other of art, or as the ideal embodiment of everything that the bourgeois aesthetic subject is not. He insists on the truth-content of the derogation, while recognising its unjust social foundation, and seeking to reflect that tension in a self-critical turn. His model of advanced art is negatively delimited by the philistinism of art with a cause and the philistinism of art for enjoyment, which represent the poles of the aesthetic and the social. The (...) philistine is also the counterpart to the connoisseur, with the interplay between them pointing to his preferred approach to aesthetics, in which an affinity for art and alienness to it are combined without compromise. However, Adorno fails to realise fully the critical potential of the philistine as the immanent negation of art and aesthetics. (shrink)

This piece reconstructs and reflects upon the terms of the theoretical projection underlying Max Tomba’s book,Marx’s Temporalities, with particular reference to his use of the concepts of multiple temporalities and temporal layers. Tomba’s use of these concepts, it is argued, productively relocates Marx’s writings within the framework of the twentieth-century philosophy of time. However, Tomba’s dependence upon received versions of these concepts, untransformed, reproduces theoretical problems implicit within them, which have been intensified by recent developments within global capital. The application (...) of these concepts to an understanding of the historical present, understood as a situation of globally disjunctive contemporaneity, is seen to be, in part, vitiated by their embeddedness within an increasingly exhausted past. (shrink)