[OPE-L:3125] Re: Re: Marx -> Hegel -> Spinoza -> Epicurus -> ?

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@ACSU.BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Thu May 11 2000 - 12:13:35 EDT

[ show plain text ]

jlevy@sescva.esc.edu (JERRY LEVY) said, on 05/11/00 at 11:02 AM:

>Re Paul Z's [OPE-L:3123]:

>Paul cites Althusser to the effect that "you have to admit that Marx was
>close to Hegel just in respect to those features which Hegel openly
>borrowed from Spinoza ...."

>Ahh ... but I don't have to admit any such thing! Nor have you advanced
>an argument for this conclusion.

    Yes, don't have to. But have you read Spinoza to have an opinion
(this is the expectation you are continually putting on other persons)?
Anyway, Althusser has -- in a detailed manner, and you'll just have to
read his argument for yourself, if you are interested. (However, I am NOT
the one proposing we go backwards).

>Of course, Hegel like Marx stood on the shoulders of those who went
>before him. This does not mean that Hegelian theory is the same as
>Spinoza's, etc. Of course, we don't require *infinite regression* (the
>beginnings of oral communication by our species?) to comprehend Marx.
>But, Marx openly acknowledges his debt to Hegel in a way in which he
>does not do with Spinoza and Epicurus.

    I have never read anyone claiming "Hegelian theory is the same as

    Hegel was a "detour" for Marx on the way to creating the science of
history. I respect Marx for acknowledging his debts (the debts of Hegel
were Hegel's problem, whatever acknowledgements Hegel did or didn't do).

>I continue to find the hostility of many Marxists to Hegel very difficult
>to comprehend when they are only familiar with his theory through
>secondary sources. Are they afraid that they will catch some kind of
>infectious disease if they open a book by Hegel? My gosh, if I mailed
>Rakesh or you a book by Hegel, would you both break out in hives upon
>opening the wrapper? (It's almost tempting to try this out as a joke!).

    I continue to find a pushing of Hegel on to other persons to be
offensive. It is one thing to like and quote Hegel or Althusser, it is
another thing to write time after time to the person " *read Hegel*! "
(How would you like me to keep repeating "read Althusser!", "read
Althusser!", "read Althusser!" -- I've REPORTED Althusser, but let others
decide for themselves what to do about it).

    Your pushing is just another version of dogmatism. And particularly
inappropriate when no quotes from Hegel are being offered as telling
remarks. If you find a particular passage interesting for a particular
issue, let's hear it.

Paul Z.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:09 EDT