From: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:28:06 EST
Subject: Re: did marx bother to think? 



--part1_192.2f46cb0.29ae7f36_boundary

In a message dated 27/02/2002 17:26:21 GMT Standard Time, 
pennamacoor-AT-enterprise.net writes:


> Subj:did marx bother to think? 
> Date:27/02/2002 17:26:21 GMT Standard Time
> From:    pennamacoor-AT-enterprise.net (Michael Pennamacoor)
> Sender:    owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu">heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu</A>
> To:    heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
> 
> 
> 
> Michael with mouth theatrically agape quoth:
> astonishingly someone wrote:
> 
> Jud: (Aforetimes)

 I do wish that people would refrain from attempting to analyse the world 
> of political and social reality from a philosophical slant, which is more 
> at home pondering the various activities of ghostie-woasties, and spirits 
> and childish imaginings such as the predicational dodge 'Dasein.' 
> 
> Michael: Protesteth:

Is that what Marx did? refrained from analysing the political and social 
world philosophically? Have we not read The Philosophic and Economic 
Manuscripts? 
> or The German Ideology? Oh yeah, Marx's philosophy did amount to an 
> indictment of 'philosophy' but which (historically situated) philosophy? 
> Any and All? Would he not grant that he must have been granting this 
> indictment precisely within a particular stage in the conflict between the 
> productive forces and the relations of production at that time? Namely: the 
> (Young and Old) Hegelians, Feuerbach, British Empiricists, etc? Was not his 
> inverting and moving away from and superceding such philosophical 
> positions, itself produced in an exemplary philosophical movement? Were not 
> his prolific pronouncements on philosophy and ideology, etc, themselves 
> uttered entirely within the ethos of an ongoing philosophical discourse 
> (and one that developed throughout his struggles with others)? Finally, 
> where are the pondering[(s) of] the various activities of ghostie-woasties, 
> and spirits and childish imaginings in Marx's texts exactly?
> 
> Marx is a philosopher and he would certainly agree that only such a being 
> as a philosopher could challenge the ideological apparatuses of idealistic 
> and falsely-materialistic philosophies that abounded during his stay upon 
> this one world. It is hard for me to imagne that anyone could possibly fail 
> to read the utterly philosophical in Marx's struggles with the ruling 
> philosophies of his time. Bah!
> 
> michaelP


Jud:
It is absolutely clear from my text that I was imputing the philosophical 
activity of  "pondering upon the various activities of ghostie-woasties, and 
spirits and childish imaginings" to HEIDEGGER and his trannie flock of 
acolytes who swing the acrid  B&T like some holy thurible, and NOT to the 
ultra-materialistic Marx. :-)

You are adopting John Foster's ploy of pretending not to understand the 
obvious in attempt pass dud coins in the marketplace of ideas.  There is a 
term in Greek rhetoric to describe this grandiloquent jape (no doubt someone 
on the list will tell us?)

Teacher's verdict?
Good attempt but must try harder Michael   2 out of 10.  ;-) for sheer cheek.

Jud.



--part1_192.2f46cb0.29ae7f36_boundary

HTML VERSION: