Chris, thanks for your exegesis on Marx--but my
question was why Marx and Freud are paired with
Nietzche instead of Darwin, the usual third figure who
ushered in (or tried to, at least) modernity. I just
don't see Nietzche as on a par with Marx and Freud.
Not that he's unimportant--far from it--but rather
that he has agendas otherwise.

Hope you get some pain relief soon. If it's any
consolation, chronic pain is not treated humanely here
either--

Candice



--- Chris Jones <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Candice, why not Marx?
> 
> In terms of a recent history of Australian Cultural
> Studies, or what
> passes for recent Australian philosophy of culture
> under that name (how
> I dislike that name, but it may be useful as an
> indication) Marx is
> certainly one of the key players in modernist
> critique.
> 
> What is important with Marx's modernist critique is
> a criticism of
> Hegel's Romanticism as a false infinite, which is to
> say Hegel proposed
> a finite Romanticism. (One can see how Marx modified
> this from Epicurean
> thought, of course.) So in this sense Marx uses the
> infinite to critique
> the finite Romanticism of Hegel's system, which
> follows here a reading
> of Badiou's understanding of Modernism against
> Romanticism. Marx is
> also, most importantly, expelled from the
> philosophical republic and so
> we have political thought as a separate stream of
> thought to philosophy,
> which again makes Marx one of the hallmark key
> thinkers of modernism as
> a critique of Romanticism which seeks to put
> aesthetics and politics
> along with science and mathematics under the
> despotic and finite thought
> of the Romantic absolute ideal... and so forth.
> 
> One of the ways in which Modernism can be understood
> as being against
> Romanticism is to understand it as a meta-critique
> or as a critique of
> Romantic critique. Marx in this way uses metaphysics
> against metaphysics
> as an immanent critique and this seems too often
> misunderstood by the
> limited and finite and hence romantic followers of
> the new human god
> given the name of Derrida, as if Kant's immanent
> critique of reason in
> _Critique of Pure Reason_ must also be thrown out as
> metaphysics making
> a confusion in this apparent doubling with what
> needs to be critiqued in
> Kant, namely the transitive theory of production
> taken from Aristotle as
> introduced into Western thought by Plato. So, also
> in this way, Marx
> makes a critique of transitive production and the
> metaphysics inherited
> by German idealist thought from Aristotle. How does
> Marx conclude the
> first chapter of Volume One of Capital? By saying we
> can get so far with
> Aristotle, but after that thinking value on the
> terms laid out by
> Aristotle is no longer possible. I have read only a
> few comments on the
> consequences of what this means for Kant's a priori
> transcendental given
> that such a critique of value also involves a
> critique of the Kantian a
> priori transcendental.
> 
> When Marx claims that Milton is unproductive labour
> in volume 2 of
> Capital, he is making a critical claim for a
> modernist poetics separate
> from political thought and against the transitive
> thinking of
> Romanticism which sees poetry as a finite transitive
> productive route to
> the Absolute idea.
> 
> Anyways, I could argue on and on... but best leave
> off here. My dog has
> been sick all day which worries me and also I must
> cook an evening meal.
> 
> Best wishes
> 
> Chris Jones.
> 
> On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 14:12 -0800, MC Ward wrote:
> > Not Marx, Freud, and _Darwin_?
> > 
> > Candice
> 




 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091