Steve I think this is missing the point.
Ilyenkov made a provocative terminological innovation by using the word
"ideal," but in my opinion he is only presenting exactly what Marx was
saying. If Ilyenkov has confined himself to "abstract" be would have been
on "safer ground" but he wouldn't have provoked a reaction.
Andy
At 02:03 AM 13/05/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>Victor, thanks for the url.
>
>Dubrovsky explicitly equates the ideal with subjective reality, and the
>material with objective reality. I am inclined to concede that this is a
>valid interpretation of Marx on this question - and also Lenin, who
>Dubrovsky cites in this regard as well. Do you agree?
>
>Ilyenkov's concept of ideality - as something quite distinct from and
>independent of individual subjective consciousness - appears to be
>something new in relation to these classical Marxists. To your knowledge,
>has this concept of ideality of Ilyenkov's been anticipated by others
>within or near the Marxist orbit? (Ilyenkov mentions Bogdanov, for example.)
>
>Best,
>- Steve
>
>
>
>
>At 02:46 PM 5/12/2004 +0200, you wrote:
>>Steve,
>>I haven't read the whole message - I'm a bit rushed at the moment - but I
>>suggest you see how Dubrovsky, Ilyenkov's materialist counterpart,
>>interprets "the ideal is nothing else than the
>> material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of
>>thought." See Ralph Dumain's Autodidact site
>>http://www.autodidactproject.org/other/dubrov1.html
>>I hope my writing was clear enough to show that I disagree with both DD and
>>EVI.
>>Regards,
>>Victor
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 12:05:48 PST