[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Ilyenkov, Marx, & Spinoza

Alexander, Mike,
Thanks for the article.
Moving to page 51 I noticed that when referencing Bernstein he contrasted (action) with (practice) and did not REPEAT (identity) the thesis about the role of practice in knowing). 
Two formulas:
• Knowing THROUGH ‘action’
• Verification of knowing THROUGH ‘practice’

These two formulas closely RESEMBLE each other but do not co-incide 

Action IS individual
Practice IS a social category.

Sociohistorical (practice) in the final analysis is nothing other than the SUM total of the actions of individual who are separate. 

Individual action is LIKE a single experiment.  They are alike in that both individual action & a single experiment are poorly suited to the role of :

A philosophical criterion of (truth).

I do not have the background to intelligently comment, but did register this theme as provocative FOR further thought and wording.
And for generating intelligent commentary

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

From: Ivan Uemlianin
Sent: July 20, 2017 11:17 AM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Cc: Alexander Surmava
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Ilyenkov, Marx, & Spinoza

Yes very interesting thank you! (Ilyenkov fan)


festina lente

> On 20 Jul 2017, at 18:00, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
> This article might prove of interest to those who have been discussing
> LSV's sources in
> marx and spinoza.
> mike
> <Ilyenkov_and_the_Revolution_in_Psycholog.pdf>