Very interesting (intimate) episode. I recently acquired a 2nd hand "For Marx". I've never read any Althusser, so I'm wondering if "For Marx" is a good place to start or should I first read some other works?
Just jump into it, I haven't read it myself outside of small snippets but from my experience reading just go for it. If something doesn't click, just read on and come back to it the next day or a few hours later, use google even
What Marxism scientifically tries to find, and what all science ultimately does, is to find a law-boundness beyond temporary movements and contradictions. I don't know how Louis Althusser can at the same time claim to refer to Marx's scientific method and then reject it, i.e. reject the conclusions of determinism.
@@viq777 Right on. My intention certainly wasn’t to throw shade at Pills or anything like that. I was just concerned since the last episode (the one about that Zizek article on the excesses of wokeness) was so contentious that maybe there was some bad blood, but I’m glad that’s not the case. I like it when there is disagreement. It makes for good content haha. Cheers!
1:00:22-1:00:45min Returning to the postmodern axiom that claims that what validates it is not to be found in evidence (there is never a need to prove this) but the interpellation to obey it if you dont want to be immoral and arrogant.
I disagree. When you read Marx’ economic and philosophical manuscripts, it’s worlds apart from the later Marx of Capital. He reads like a Hegelian, and his description of private property arising from alienation doesn’t even seem to be materialist. I have to agree with Althusser; the early Marx is Feuerbachian, not Marxist.
41-42min Seems to be unable to realize that "an infinite number of elements" always belongs to a principle, or, set: variations. The problem with the label "its determined by a complex/infinte number of things" is that it attributes to any and every possible element equal weight regarding the output in such a way that, paradoxically, does away with the very same concept they claim is crucial to grasp "complex phenomena". that is to say,difference.
Im pretty sure this isn't the case, attributing an outcome to a number of determinants does not entail that each is equal, it just entails that each contributes. He even talks about this, i think, in the later portion of For Marx, by emphasizing the principle of the uneven development of contradictions, which asserts that some contradictions become more dominant than others, and recognizing these relations of dominance brings some degree of intelligibility (i may have misunderstood him, this was what i got out of it.)
@@eggsess4624 Most of the accts I have had a chance to look into are very emphatic in wanting to undo the issue of an organizing principle that structures a number of outputs. In "Hegemony and Socialist Strategy" they make some impressive efforts in attempting to formulate a (linguistic-objectified/concretized) structure w/o it's universal dimension: the nominalism they attempt to constitute. Strangely enough it returns (the universal dimension) in strange ways having to resort to synonyms that signify a sort of fading/non-existent universal, or, principle. Regarding Althusser himself. From what I have read/heard he presents developed themes in Marxist political-economy, the dialectical inter-relation between economy and superstructure (the diverse relation between elements), as something of a thing he had to address/come up with. He speaks of overdetermination (from analysis) instead of the dialectical relations mentioned above. From what I read things like Engels "Dialectics of Nature" went some way in at least attempting to acct for the diverse factors that yield the societal output. Also claimed there was an epistemic break within Marx's work & from the answers to him that I have read it seems difficult to agree with him on that point. That's been what I have been able to conclude.
I'm confused by your discussion of the last instance. We're talking about determination in the last instance. So we aren't looking for something in the future "that never comes" but in the past before "human" subjectivity existed. In the last instance, everythibg is determined by economics in the same way that in the last instance everything is determined by the big bang. Non-"material" causes for events are real but firstly, they are always also material in some sense, and secondly, if you follow the chain of causation long enough, you necessarily wind up with something that is material even in the vulgar sense of the word i.e. non-subjective.
1:00:00-1:00:22min. Yeah, the issue of "not knowing your place", of the infraction of questioning, of not simply obeying a command "not to understand" if you dont want to be "metaphysical". Very systematic and incestual/infantilizing.
49-49:27min Of course no idea about "the theory of labor" (somehow things are produced and find their way to where they are at) yet he claims this is a better position to grasp HUMAN related phenomena: what they construct.
56:50min-57:05min It is interesting they present an ideological/falsifying dialectic as the most empirically grounded theory. Strange contradiction. The issue ommnipotence of ideology as if it was not significantly limited, or, finite. It is revealing of the ideological limits of post-structuralism and its dialectic for ideological formations. It claims the more alienated and limited one is the better will be the grasp on empirical things. It will enable the endless, confusing, asphyxiating registration of "things as they are.". Hence its relation with the function of metaphysics and its deep connection with things as the privatization of education: another paradox.
Very interesting (intimate) episode. I recently acquired a 2nd hand "For Marx". I've never read any Althusser, so I'm wondering if "For Marx" is a good place to start or should I first read some other works?
I heard reading "How to be a Marxist in philosophy" by althusser is a good place for a beginner to start.
Just jump into it, I haven't read it myself outside of small snippets but from my experience reading just go for it. If something doesn't click, just read on and come back to it the next day or a few hours later, use google even
Althusser breaks with the Engels theory of dialectical materialism, but accepts Marx’ formulations in Capital. But I see your point
nice
What Marxism scientifically tries to find, and what all science ultimately does, is to find a law-boundness beyond temporary movements and contradictions. I don't know how Louis Althusser can at the same time claim to refer to Marx's scientific method and then reject it, i.e. reject the conclusions of determinism.
Where is Victor? He makes this podcast interesting. Please bring him back.
Be excellent to yourself and others
Just took the week off. Busy week for me
@@viq777 Right on. My intention certainly wasn’t to throw shade at Pills or anything like that. I was just concerned since the last episode (the one about that Zizek article on the excesses of wokeness) was so contentious that maybe there was some bad blood, but I’m glad that’s not the case. I like it when there is disagreement. It makes for good content haha. Cheers!
1:00:22-1:00:45min Returning to the postmodern axiom that claims that what validates it is not to be found in evidence (there is never a need to prove this) but the interpellation to obey it if you dont want to be immoral and arrogant.
There is no break in Marx. Alienation is highly important. Read Bertell Olmann's Alienation.
Ok humanist
@@ManyDog I get the impression that the distinction between humanist and anti-humanist is over-determined
@@ManyDog read Lukacs. read Lefebvre. read Sartre.
I disagree. When you read Marx’ economic and philosophical manuscripts, it’s worlds apart from the later Marx of Capital. He reads like a Hegelian, and his description of private property arising from alienation doesn’t even seem to be materialist. I have to agree with Althusser; the early Marx is Feuerbachian, not Marxist.
Great episode!
also, i liked Althusser floating around the screen, for some reason :V
15:10 omg dude please stop playing with the mic
41-42min Seems to be unable to realize that "an infinite number of elements" always belongs to a principle, or, set: variations. The problem with the label "its determined by a complex/infinte number of things" is that it attributes to any and every possible element equal weight regarding the output in such a way that, paradoxically, does away with the very same concept they claim is crucial to grasp "complex phenomena". that is to say,difference.
Im pretty sure this isn't the case, attributing an outcome to a number of determinants does not entail that each is equal, it just entails that each contributes. He even talks about this, i think, in the later portion of For Marx, by emphasizing the principle of the uneven development of contradictions, which asserts that some contradictions become more dominant than others, and recognizing these relations of dominance brings some degree of intelligibility (i may have misunderstood him, this was what i got out of it.)
@@eggsess4624 Most of the accts I have had a chance to look into are very emphatic in wanting to undo the issue of an organizing principle that structures a number of outputs. In "Hegemony and Socialist Strategy" they make some impressive efforts in attempting to formulate a (linguistic-objectified/concretized) structure w/o it's universal dimension: the nominalism they attempt to constitute. Strangely enough it returns (the universal dimension) in strange ways having to resort to synonyms that signify a sort of fading/non-existent universal, or, principle.
Regarding Althusser himself. From what I have read/heard he presents developed themes in Marxist political-economy, the dialectical inter-relation between economy and superstructure (the diverse relation between elements), as something of a thing he had to address/come up with. He speaks of overdetermination (from analysis) instead of the dialectical relations mentioned above. From what I read things like Engels "Dialectics of Nature" went some way in at least attempting to acct for the diverse factors that yield the societal output.
Also claimed there was an epistemic break within Marx's work & from the answers to him that I have read it seems difficult to agree with him on that point. That's been what I have been able to conclude.
I'm confused by your discussion of the last instance. We're talking about determination in the last instance. So we aren't looking for something in the future "that never comes" but in the past before "human" subjectivity existed. In the last instance, everythibg is determined by economics in the same way that in the last instance everything is determined by the big bang. Non-"material" causes for events are real but firstly, they are always also material in some sense, and secondly, if you follow the chain of causation long enough, you necessarily wind up with something that is material even in the vulgar sense of the word i.e. non-subjective.
1:00:00-1:00:22min. Yeah, the issue of "not knowing your place", of the infraction of questioning, of not simply obeying a command "not to understand" if you dont want to be "metaphysical". Very systematic and incestual/infantilizing.
49-49:27min Of course no idea about "the theory of labor" (somehow things are produced and find their way to where they are at) yet he claims this is a better position to grasp HUMAN related phenomena: what they construct.
56:50min-57:05min It is interesting they present an ideological/falsifying dialectic as the most empirically grounded theory. Strange contradiction. The issue ommnipotence of ideology as if it was not significantly limited, or, finite. It is revealing of the ideological limits of post-structuralism and its dialectic for ideological formations. It claims the more alienated and limited one is the better will be the grasp on empirical things. It will enable the endless, confusing, asphyxiating registration of "things as they are.". Hence its relation with the function of metaphysics and its deep connection with things as the privatization of education: another paradox.
y e s