[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] request for removal of some problems
Haydi, on your first question: what is the referent "that is"
referring to in the passage cited?
The passage you are citing is on page 262 of Vol 3 of the Plenum CW,
which, as you know, is the source of the scanned MIA version. As you
explain, this is located about 5 pages into Chapter 7 of The Crisis in
Psychology.
Starting at the top of pg 262, Vygotsky is criticizing Luria's
treatment of psychoanalysis. In this paragraph, he criticizes Luria's
concept of the "general methodological foundations of the epoch" which
Vygotsky sees as simply lumping together the "great scientific
achievements" of Darwin, Comte, Pavlov and Einstein, and then listing
Marxism as just another discovery.
In the article by Luria [1925, p. 55], for example, psychoanalysis
is presented as “a system of monistic psychology,” whose
methodology “coincides with the methodology” of Marxism. In order
to prove this a number of most naive transformations of both
systems are carried out as a result of which they “coincide.” Let
us briefly look at these transformations. First of all, Marxism is
situated in the general methodology of the epoch, alongside Darwin,
Comte, Pavlov, and Einstein, who together create the general
methodological foundations of the epoch. The role and importance of
each of these authors is, of course, deeply and fundamentally
different, and by its very nature the role of dialectical
materialism is totally different from all of them. Not to see this
means to deduce methodology from the sum total of “great scientific
achievements”. As soon as one reduces all these names and Marxism
to a common denominator it is not difficult to unite Marxism with
any “great scientific achievement,” because this was presupposed:
the“coincidence” looked for is in the presupposition and not in the
conclusion. The“fundamental methodology of the epoch” consists of
the sum total of the discoveries made by Pavlov, Einstein, etc.
Marxism is one of these discoveries, which belong to the “group of
principles indispensable for quite a number of closely-related
sciences” [ibid p. 47].
Then Vygotsky pokes a little fun at Luria and suggests that he could
have ended his argumentation relating Freudianism and Marxism with
this simplistic idea right there, on the first page of his paper.
Which brings us to your sensible question about the confusing use of
"that is". This "that is" you are asking about might have been better
entirely left out by the translator, in my view. I think it is just
a redundant way of saying where "here" is.
"Here, on the first page, that is ..."
could be put several others ways:
"Right there, that is to say, on the first page ..."
"Here ... in other words, on the first page of this paper ..."
Etc.
And dropping it altogether might be the clearest of all!
Here, on the first page, ****that is [to say]****, the
argumentation might have ended: after Einstein one would only have
to mention Freud, for he is also a “great scientific achievement”
and, thus, a participant in the “general methodological foundations
of the epoch.”
- Steve
On Jun 15, 2009, at 5:41 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:
Haydi,
I receive messages from xmca in plain text, so I cannot see what you
claim is in a large font. I am sure others have the same problem.
Can you send just the excerpt you wanted in large text?
Andy
Haydi Zulfei wrote:
Dear all , This was formerly written to a very close friend
who is very busy with his very different jobs . Now is there
anybody to help me with the problem ? For so-called a
translation ! of Vygotsky's " The Crisis " into my native language
I reached chapter 7 , page 6 of 15 of the Marxist.Org Version of
the Work . And you can have the rest of the story below : The
sentence in focus has been presented in larger fonts , in
particular , what signification and function the " that is " phrase
within the sentence , allocates to itself ?
Thanks a lot , dear ... ! This is the stuff : Note please here
for me the syntax and the WELL-formedness of the sentence is more
complicated than its APPROPRIATENESS ; though it's very obvious the
very syntax spoils the appropiacy . Thank you very much !
In the article by Luria [1925, p. 55], for example, psychoanalysis
is presented as “a system of monistic psychology,” whose
methodology “coincides with the methodology” of Marxism. In order
to prove this a number of most naive transformations of both
systems are carried out as a result of which they “coincide.” Let
us briefly look at these transformations. First of all, Marxism is
situated in the general methodology of the epoch, alongside Darwin,
Comte, Pavlov, and Einstein, who together create the general
methodological foundations of the epoch. The role and importance of
each of these authors is, of course, deeply and fundamentally
different, and by its very nature the role of dialectical
materialism is totally different from all of them. Not to see this
means to deduce methodology from the sum total of “great scientific
achievements”. As soon as one reduces all these names and Marxism
to a common denominator it is not difficult to
unite Marxism with any “great scientific achievement,” because this
was presupposed: the“coincidence” looked for is in the
presupposition and not in the conclusion. The“fundamental
methodology of the epoch” consists of the sum total of the
discoveries made by Pavlov, Einstein, etc. Marxism is one of these
discoveries, which belong to the “group of principles indispensable
for quite a number of closely-related sciences” Here, on the first
page, that is ??????, the argumentation might have ended: after
Einstein one would only have to mention Freud, for he is also a
“great scientific achievement” and, thus, a participant in the
“general methodological foundations of the epoch.” But one must
have much uncritical trust in scientific reputation to deduce the
methodology of an epoch from the sum total of famous names.
There is no unitary basic methodology of the epoch. What we have is
a system of fighting, deeply hostile, mutually exclusive,
methodological principles and eachtheory – whether by Pavlov or
Einstein – has its own methodological merit. To distill a general
methodology of the epoch and to dissolve Marxism in it means to
transform not only the appearance, but also the essence of Marxism.
But also Freudian theory is inescapably subjected to the same type
of transformations. Freud himself would be amazed to learn that
psychoanalysis is a systemof monistic psychology and that
“methodologically he carries on... historical
materialism” [Fridman, 1925, p. 159]. Not a single psychoanalytic
journal would, of course, print the papers by Luria and Fridman.
That is highly important. For a very peculiar situation has
evolved: Freud and his school have never declared themselves to be
monists, materialists, dialecticians, or followers of historical
materialism. But they are told: you are both the first, and the
second, and the third. You yourselves don’t know who you are. Of
course, one can imagine such a situation, it is entirely possible.
But then it is necessary to give an exact explanation of the
methodological foundations of this doctrine, as conceived of and
developed by its authors, and then a proof of the refutation of
these foundations
and to explain by what miracle and on what foundations
psychoanalysis developed a system of methodology which is foreign
to its authors. Instead of this, the identity of the two systems is
declared by a simple formal-logical superposition of the
characteristics – without a single analysis of Freud’s basic
concepts, without critically weighing and elucidating his
assumptions and starting points, without a critical examination of
the genesis of his ideas, even without simply inquiring how he
himself conceives of the philosophical foundations of his system
But, maybe, this formal-logical characterization of the two systems
is correct? We have already seen how one distills Marxism’s share
in the general methodology of the epoch, in which everything is
roughly and naively reduced to a common denominator: if both
Einstein and Pavlov and Marx belong to science, then they must have
a common foundation. But Freudian theory suffers even more
distortions in this process. I will not even mention how Zalkind
(1924) mechanically deprives it of its central idea. In his article
it is passed over in silence, which is also note worthy. But take
the monism of psychoanalysis – Freud would contest it. The article
mentions that he turned to philosophical monism, but where, in
which words, in connection with what? Is finding empirical unity in
some group of facts really always monism? On the contrary, Freud
always accepted the mental, the unconscious as a special force
which cannot be reduced to something else. Further,
why is this monism materialistic in the philosophical sense? After
all, medical materialism which acknowledges the influence of
different organs etc. upon mental structures is still very far from
philosophical materialism. In the philosophy of Marxism this
concept has a specific, primarily epistemological sense and it is
precisely in his epistemology that Freud stands on idealist
philosophical grounds. For it is a fact, which is not refuted and
not even considered by the authors of the “coincidences,” that
Freud’s doctrine of the primary role of blind drives, of the
unconscious as being reflected in consciousness in a distorted
fashion, goes back directly to Schopenhauer’s idealistic
metaphysics of the will and the idea. Freud [1920/1973, pp. 49-50]
himself remarks that in his extreme conclusions he is in the harbor
of Schopenhauer. But his basic assumptions as well as the main
lines of his system are connected with the philosophy of the great
pessimist, as even the simplest analysis can demonstrate.
The other problem is when I reached here " Thus , we see where
Freud and his system have come from and where they are heading
for : from Schopenhauer and Lipps to Kolnay and mass psychology " .
I searched google for " Kolnay and mass psychology " . Among the
alternatives ( results ) , I reached for a link which apparently
belongs to http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/crisis/6_dir/6_s3.htm
Now , how can I locate this in the lchc archieve to learn about
the whole story in the past ? Is there the possibility of reaching
for the whole pages of the work ? Is it something different from
the Marxist.Org version ? The page numbers says this must be the
case . Now , the more I try , the less I succeed in remembering
anything from the past . You see ! It must be the problem of age !!
Best
Haydi
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Blunden (Erythrós Press and Media) http://www.erythrospress.com/
Orders: http://www.erythrospress.com/store/main.html#books
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca