Re: [xmca] ego, self, etc.

From: Martin Packer <packer who-is-at>
Date: Mon Feb 04 2008 - 12:45:08 PST


I agree (I think), but Bourdieu indeed makes the claim that by objectifying
our techniques of objectification we can achieve an "absolute" viewpoint. He
seems to be arguing that a properly relexive science can produce knowledge
that is no longer "particular."

Are you suggesting that (contra Hegel) absolute knowledge is not possible?
And if so, how do you deal with Marx's tendency to envision an end to
history where false consciousness has been transcended?


On 2/2/08 7:01 PM, "Andy Blunden" <> wrote:

> Martin, I think there is a difference between, on one hand, recognising
> that science creates something objective, i.e., something which transcends
> the habitus, or subjective point of view, of the scientists who create the
> science, and on the other hand, claiming that any particular scientific
> product is "absolute knowledge". Objective not= Absolute.
> In a sense what is subjective comes into being and passes away, but that
> which is objective does not so much pass away as get taken up and negated
> by another, and in that sense although relative, is a part or aspect of the
> absolute (the movement itself). This is true, I think, both historically
> and culturally (in the words of the French diachronically and synchronically).

xmca mailing list
Received on Mon Feb 4 12:46 PST 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 06 2008 - 10:37:02 PST