Karl Marx one of the most notorious philosophers in history used philosophy to make sense of the world and how it functions, with hopes of aiding society in emancipating itself by enabling people to recognize the real troubles of humanity. However Marx found himself in quit the philosophical debacle as he stressed in Theses on Feurbach: “philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it” (p.145). The dilemma he points out- the catch-22 or vicious cycle of philosophy, is one which seems to cause him great distress in the aftermath of all his philosophical essays: how does highlighting the problems of the human condition actually fix it, doesn’t it only further perpetuate such problems if there’s failure to take action? Marx in his assessments does propose how make humans whole again but perhaps what is missing is a praxis combining both theories with practice. Philosophy provides a lens to interpret and analyze the world- but is that lens sufficient to employ the change one wishes to bring about? After years and years of philosophizing, does merely critiquing the problems in society and the shackles of the human race really help society seek freedom? Or, rather does is only provide a premise to become more enlightened but lack in providing the means to take action and implement CHANGE. Perhaps Marx himself fell pray to this catch-22 of philosophy: he assessed societal dilemmas and perhaps attained some sort of enlightenment but failed to take action or spark change to get closer to true emancipation. For example, modern society continuously scrutinizes the Darfur Crisis in Sudan as a human rights catastrophe, which like many other wide scale genocides has led to the mass killings of innocent civilians and a refugee problem. Yet did the initial flood of critical media coverage and negative attacks on the crisis actually aid in helping to resolve it? Or did it only provide a means for people to be aware, some informed and others depressed by the situation but unable to resolve it? Though such notions might spark some negative criticism, isn’t blissful innocence or naivety sometimes preferable, if information isn’t going to ensue some sort of action or response? It seems as though this tool of philosophy enlightened Marx but left him unfulfilled perhaps feeling as though he hadn’t really accomplished much (though this is entirely false, considering his texts were at one point in time more widely circulated than the Bible itself and changed the world). What does philosophy actually accomplish? A means to an end, like a theory, but not the end itself. Marx believed in a constant dialectic rooted in materiality as necessary to advance society. Marx discusses so in the Communist Manifesto: “all fixed, fast-frozen relations, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life and his relations with his kind” (p.476). He was addressing the conditions of life with his sober senses in all of his philosophical interpretations. If it is true that a Constant revolution is necessary for progression, than he is entirely right in recognizing that mere interpretation doesn’t bring about change. People need to act, and to challenge the system, to truly revolutionize. For Marx the end goal was true emancipation- freedom from estrangement caused by capitalism. He stressed the need for humanity to return to its natural state by declaring: “Every emancipation is a restoration of the human world and of human relationships to man himself” (p.46). That return to nature, according to Marx, embodied humans as species-beings, who are uninhabited and unrestrained, by the shackles of labor, religion, and politics. Therefore, man would attain political and religious freedom by emancipating the state “from Judaism, Christianity, and Religion in general” (p.45). And further more, “the estrangement inherent in the nature of labour” because the worker’s enslavement to labor provides the “means of life,” could be overcome once man becomes a species- being (p.72-3). Marx summarizes the ideal emancipation as attainable only under certain conditions in his essay On the Jewish Question: “Human emancipation will only be complete when the real, individual man has absorbed into himself the abstract citizen; when as an individual man, in his everyday life, in his work, and in his relationships, he has become a species-being; and when he has recognized and organized his own powers (forces propres) as social powers so that he no longer separates social power from himself as political power” (p.46). How then can the human emancipation Marx discusses be achieved through the means of philosophy? By putting it into practice. The estrangement of man discussed abundantly in Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 is the dilemma society must overcome. Relying on the proliferation of antagonisms Marx provides tools for society to take action; the question is whether or not his philosophical inquiries can convince people to do so. According to Hegel “Sublation” is responsible for the movement and progression of society, a concept that Marx embraced, as the motor by which the dialectic functions. It is where paradoxical forces are tested and contested- and is perhaps the secret of philosophy, which provides a means to embrace notions of the past, challenge them, and redirect them. But just as Marx questioned in Feurbach’s theses: in philosophy is merely reading, interpreting, and analyzing sufficient, or must there be a latter result? The answer to the philosophical debacle is employing praxis- and when practice is implemented perhaps then man is no longer bound. Only then can human emancipation be achieved.
A Recent 2009 NYU Graduate with a B.S in Media, Culture, & Communication from NYU's Steinhart; fusing studies in communications, impact of technology, politics, and business alongside personal interest in social activism, I create this blog for a Wagner Course. Further compelled by personal involvement in the Palestinian and Israeli conflict i was drawn into researching refugee populations for my final Blog project in the Wagner Course: "Globalizing Social Activism and The Power of the Media." It was a perfect framework to look more closely at how technological advancements and media influence have given voice to the global refugee crisis, and what role the media plays in shaping public agenda concerning global crises. Having done former comparitive research on Western and Arab media, Middle East Conflict coverage,and theories of globalization this felt like a natural progression.
1 comment:
The Philosophical Debacle
Karl Marx one of the most notorious philosophers in history used philosophy to make sense of the world and how it functions, with hopes of aiding society in emancipating itself by enabling people to recognize the real troubles of humanity. However Marx found himself in quit the philosophical debacle as he stressed in Theses on Feurbach: “philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways; the point, however, is to change it” (p.145). The dilemma he points out- the catch-22 or vicious cycle of philosophy, is one which seems to cause him great distress in the aftermath of all his philosophical essays: how does highlighting the problems of the human condition actually fix it, doesn’t it only further perpetuate such problems if there’s failure to take action? Marx in his assessments does propose how make humans whole again but perhaps what is missing is a praxis combining both theories with practice.
Philosophy provides a lens to interpret and analyze the world- but is that lens sufficient to employ the change one wishes to bring about? After years and years of philosophizing, does merely critiquing the problems in society and the shackles of the human race really help society seek freedom? Or, rather does is only provide a premise to become more enlightened but lack in providing the means to take action and implement CHANGE. Perhaps Marx himself fell pray to this catch-22 of philosophy: he assessed societal dilemmas and perhaps attained some sort of enlightenment but failed to take action or spark change to get closer to true emancipation. For example, modern society continuously scrutinizes the Darfur Crisis in Sudan as a human rights catastrophe, which like many other wide scale genocides has led to the mass killings of innocent civilians and a refugee problem. Yet did the initial flood of critical media coverage and negative attacks on the crisis actually aid in helping to resolve it? Or did it only provide a means for people to be aware, some informed and others depressed by the situation but unable to resolve it?
Though such notions might spark some negative criticism, isn’t blissful innocence or naivety sometimes preferable, if information isn’t going to ensue some sort of action or response? It seems as though this tool of philosophy enlightened Marx but left him unfulfilled perhaps feeling as though he hadn’t really accomplished much (though this is entirely false, considering his texts were at one point in time more widely circulated than the Bible itself and changed the world). What does philosophy actually accomplish? A means to an end, like a theory, but not the end itself.
Marx believed in a constant dialectic rooted in materiality as necessary to advance society. Marx discusses so in the Communist Manifesto: “all fixed, fast-frozen relations, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life and his relations with his kind” (p.476). He was addressing the conditions of life with his sober senses in all of his philosophical interpretations. If it is true that a Constant revolution is necessary for progression, than he is entirely right in recognizing that mere interpretation doesn’t bring about change. People need to act, and to challenge the system, to truly revolutionize.
For Marx the end goal was true emancipation- freedom from estrangement caused by capitalism. He stressed the need for humanity to return to its natural state by declaring: “Every emancipation is a restoration of the human world and of human relationships to man himself” (p.46). That return to nature, according to Marx, embodied humans as species-beings, who are uninhabited and unrestrained, by the shackles of labor, religion, and politics. Therefore, man would attain political and religious freedom by emancipating the state “from Judaism, Christianity, and Religion in general” (p.45). And further more, “the estrangement inherent in the nature of labour” because the worker’s enslavement to labor provides the “means of life,” could be overcome once man becomes a species- being (p.72-3). Marx summarizes the ideal emancipation as attainable only under certain conditions in his essay On the Jewish Question: “Human emancipation will only be complete when the real, individual man has absorbed into himself the abstract citizen; when as an individual man, in his everyday life, in his work, and in his relationships, he has become a species-being; and when he has recognized and organized his own powers (forces propres) as social powers so that he no longer separates social power from himself as political power” (p.46). How then can the human emancipation Marx discusses be achieved through the means of philosophy? By putting it into practice.
The estrangement of man discussed abundantly in Economic & Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 is the dilemma society must overcome. Relying on the proliferation of antagonisms Marx provides tools for society to take action; the question is whether or not his philosophical inquiries can convince people to do so. According to Hegel “Sublation” is responsible for the movement and progression of society, a concept that Marx embraced, as the motor by which the dialectic functions. It is where paradoxical forces are tested and contested- and is perhaps the secret of philosophy, which provides a means to embrace notions of the past, challenge them, and redirect them. But just as Marx questioned in Feurbach’s theses: in philosophy is merely reading, interpreting, and analyzing sufficient, or must there be a latter result? The answer to the philosophical debacle is employing praxis- and when practice is implemented perhaps then man is no longer bound. Only then can human emancipation be achieved.
Post a Comment