Re: [xmca] LSV and Kant

Very interesting
----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan Tudge JRTUDGE <jrtudge@uncg.edu>
Date: Thursday, March 25, 2010 8:59 am
Subject: Re: [xmca] LSV and Kant
To: ablunden@mira.net, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>

> Martin, Andy, or Larry,
>
> Could you please re-post Martin's attachment on Kant (or send to
> me
> directly, at jrtudge@uncg.edu).
>
> thanks,
>
> Jon
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Jonathan Tudge
> Professor
> 155 Stone
>
> Mailing address:
> 248 Stone Building
> Department of Human Development and Family Studies
> PO Box 26170
> The University of North Carolina at Greensboro
> Greensboro, NC 27402-6170
> USA
>
> phone (336) 256-0131
> fax (336) 334-5076
>
> http://www.uncg.edu/hdf/facultystaff/Tudge/Tudge.html
>
>
>
>
>
> Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> 03/24/2010 10:58 PM
> Please respond to
> ablunden@mira.net; Please respond to
> "eXtended Mind,
> Culture, Activity"
> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>
> To
> "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> cc
>
> Subject
> Re: [xmca] LSV and Kant
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I hoped you picked up from my response Larry, that I thought
> Marxists were completely wrong to regard Kant-critique as
> over and done with. We should all try to read Kant and
> understand him. He is a very powerful thinker, and it is all
> too easy to repeat a few slogans, as orthodox Marxists have
> been wont to do. Critique of Kant is very rewarding. And
> Martin's book is a great place to start and get one's
> bearings on it.
>
> Andy
>
> Larry Purss wrote:
> > Andy and Martin
> > Thank you for your answers.
> > Andy, thanks for your answechaper that Hegel covered the topic
> of Kant,
> > so others did not have to elaborate further. However,
> when reading
> > Martin's attachment I believe rich insights are gained by
> reading these
> > ideas through a historical lens as capturing current debates
> that
> > continue today. My reading of Martin's chapters is that
> sociocultural
> > theory can be read as a response to Kant.
> > Martin thanks for the new attachment on Kant. I
> appreciate your
> > guidance in expanding my historical awareness of the geneology
> of ideas.
>
> > Martin, from your article it seems Kant's influence is still
> dominant
> > even to day as it frames so many debates that continue even
> today. I
> > learn so much about one side of a debate when people argue and
> critique
> > people who they view as villans. Critiquing Kant gives me new
> insights
> > on sociocultural theory ( DIALOGICALITY)
> >
> > So for that reason I'm going to read the posted article on
> Kant's
> > continuing dominance in how we frame our sociocultural
> theories as
> > reactions to Kant.
> >
> > Martin, one more quick question. Your elaboration of the
> notion of
> > intersubjective CONSTITUTION seems to be a critical way of
> elaborating
> > sociocultural positions in reaction to Kant. Has your framing
> of the
> > notion of constitution been debated on XMCA in previous years.
> >
> > If not, I hope others have downloaded your attachment and are
> introduced
>
> > to your ideas on the centrality of this notion for our
> understaning of
> > the human enterprise
> > Larry
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> > Date: Wednesday, March 24, 2010 5:06 pm
> > Subject: [xmca] LSV and Kant
> > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >
> > > On LSV and Kant ... In the early 80s I remember asking a
> > > Marxist/professor type what Marx had had to say about Kant
> > > because everyone was saying bad things about
> Kantianism and
> > > I wanted to know more. (In those days it never
> occurred to
> > > us to read Kant to know about Kant, or Feuerbach to know
> > > about Feuerbach!) He replied that Marx wrote nothing about
> > > Kant (and this is true, not a word!) because "everything
> > > that needed to be said about Kant had already been
> said by
> > > Hegel."
> > >
> > > That pretty much characterizes how Marxists have dealt with
> > > Kant. Ilyenkov's book (you know where to get that) concisely
> > > explains the Marxist critique of Kant, abstracted from
> > > Fichte/Schelling and Hegel, and my guess is that LSV
> who had
> > > read all the people leading up to Kant (Descartes, Spinoza,
> > > Locke, Hume, Rousseau), and people like Plekhanov and Lenin,
> > > would find that Ilyenkov accurately reflects his view.
> > >
> > > As it happens I have since discovered that Critique of Kant
> > > was not solely the privilege of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel
> > > (as suggested by Hegel and picked up by every Marxist since,
> > > including Ilyenkov), and Luria and LSV were big fans of
> > > Goethe, so it just maybe that LSV got part of his Kant
> > > critique from that quarter, possibly.
> > >
> > > What I recall reading in LSV is condemnation of the
> > > "unknowable thing-in-itself" and in Chapter 5 of "Crisis"
> > > you will find a criticism to the effect that Kant held that
> > > laws of Nature were "dictated" by reason. His famous 1925
> > > speech tells me that LSV had read Kant, as he makes a subtle
> > > point about Kant's conception of the subject which I don't
> > > recall other Marxists making, only Fichte.
> > >
> > > Does that help?
> > >
> > > Andy
> > >
> > > Martin Packer wrote:
> > > > On LSV's treatment of Kant, I have to duck. I don't
> have LSV's
> > > texts to hand to look for direct references. I know
> virtually> > nothing about the state of Kant studies in
> the USSR at that
> > > time. One could, however, make the sweeping
> generalization that
> > > all philosophy since then has been a response to Kant (I'm
> > > attaching an article that makes that point about a
> collection of
> > > 20th century scholars). And to drift away from your question
> > > temporarily, to me the most interesting readings of
> Kant see him
> > > as having captured (in his dualism between things as
> they are
> > > and as they appear; in his separation of thought,
> action, and
> > > judgment) the state of human being of a particular
> time and
> > > place, and they then respond by trying to revolves
> these splits
> > > either in theory, or in practice, or both. I'm going
> to go out
> > > on a limb and say that both Habermas and Foucault,
> despite their
> > > obvious differences, read Kant that way.
> > > > And that leads me to one of my few disappointments
> with LSV:
> > > that he was not able to criticize the society of his
> time. His
> > > essay "The Socialist Formation of Man" shows very well
> that he
> > > was certainly capable of this. His biography suggests
> he had
> > > every reason to do so. Obviously it was the state of society
> > > that itself made any criticism impossible, but it sure would
> > > have been fascinating to read!
> > > > Martin
> > > --
> > > -------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> > > -------
> > > Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
> > > Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
> > > Ilyenkov $20 ea
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
>
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> Andy Blunden http://www.erythrospress.com/
> Classics in Activity Theory: Hegel, Leontyev, Meshcheryakov,
> Ilyenkov $20 ea
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>