![]() ![]() It is of little doubt that Marx's preferences about social and material relations are sharply opposed to the views of Enlightenment giants such as the likes of John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and Adam Smith. In such light, it may appear that, for Hegel and Marx, argumentation was essentially dependent, not independent, of the participants in the argument. Hegel, in contrast, championed the inherent tension represented in each proposition, due to its evaluation from a verbal form being inseparable from the linguistic, cultural, ontological, and other facets of the background of any individual giving or receiving argument. An essential demand of liberal thought has been to appraise the value of any argument as completely independent from the individual providing it. Arguments are largely considered as capable of transcending contextual constraints, and are offered in a linear progression, intended to increase incrementally a base of universal knowledge. Liberal discourse may be considered as comprising a succession of observations and inferences obeying objective and formal methods. Yet, more narrowly, it may appear that dialectic methods also endeavor to address limitations in liberal modes of argumentation. ![]() It is clear that dialectic methods, particularly the materialist orientation championed by Marx, share a common direction with the broader Enlightenment project of refining objective and rational methods of inquiry, toward challenging authoritarian and dogmatic claims of truth or knowledge. “Rockwell’s ambitious study will remain essential reading for anyone concerned with the fundamental question of necessity and freedom, and for those generally interested in Marx’s critical social theory, Hegelian dialectics, Critical Theory and Marxist-Humanism.I wish to understand how Hegelian dialectics, further carried, through Marxism, from an idealist to materialist orientation, positions itself with respect to the Enlightenment and liberalism. Essential reading for anyone interested in the critique of Marx and Hegel in Frankfurt School Critical Theory.” (Nick Nesbitt, Professor, Comparative Literature, Princeton University, USA) ![]() It offers the most thorough analysis to date of the unjustly neglected Marcuse-Dunayevskaya correspondence, and builds on this foundation to offer insightful appraisals of Marcuse, Habermas, and Moishe Postone's theories of value, labor, automation, and the human in late capitalism. Formally, the book is very well laid out.” (Kaveh Boveiri, Marx and Philosophy,, April 13, 2021) “Russell Rockwell's book is a rigorous and pathbreaking examination of Hegel and Marx's philosophies of necessity and freedom as interpreted by the Critical Theory tradition. ![]() “The book takes a promising standpoint, novel enough, to be read thoroughly by all people interested in familiarizing themselves with such an important theme. This is important for three reasons: first, to understand the significance of the changing relationships of work, society, and critical social theory in the origins of Hegelian-Marxism in the US, as documented in the recently published correspondence between the Marxist-Humanist theoretician Raya Dunayevskaya and the critical theorist Herbert Marcuse second, to identify the intersections of the Critical Theorists Jurgen Habermas’ and Marcuse’s influential reinterpretations of Marx’s “value theory” of economy and society that enables navigation of the changing relationships of the social and economic spheres in the last century, as developed in Marx’s Grundrisse and, thirdly, to assess the potential of Moishe Postone’s renewal of Marx’s value theory, largely conceived by the notion of a necessity and freedom dialectic intrinsic to capitalism. Hegel’s philosophy and Karl Marx’s critical social theory of necessity and freedom. This book provides close readings of primary texts to analyze the linkage between G.W.F. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |