Essence is a permanent characteristic that gives something its identity. Marx’s concept of human nature “is a dialectical composite of essence and existence” (3). Thus Marx has to develop a theory of the human being within his theory of history. For Marx there are two constant determinants in history: human beings and nature. Thus, it is paramount to ascertain Marx’s theory of human nature. He believes that if readers do not understand Marx’s theory of human nature, they will inevitably misapprehend his entire system. This leads to the further conclusion that all dialectical moments in Marx’s system (e.g., alienation, bourgeois society, the economic structures of society, and the conditioning of the superstructure), are derived from a process of mankind’s activity, and its realizations and negations. Marx has a particular view of mankind, which in relation to the material external world, conditions the entire mode of production. Tabak however wants to base Marx’s system on Marx’s theory of human nature. The productive relations are usually seen as the base of society. Marx’s theory of the mode of production is usually and curtly presented as comprising the forces of production, which entail developed social relationships around them, giving rise to or conditioning a certain ideological superstructure. What makes Tabak’s writing so intriguing is that for him “umanism … is the basis of dialectical historical materialism,” and “human nature, thus, constitutes the primary standpoint of thought … because man is the subject and the main substance of the historical objective totality” (vii). Tabak’s “main purpose” for writing this book is to “outline Karl Marx’s philosophical system.” This has been done before. Even if you disagree with him, his shrewd theorizing will force you to reflect. Considering these camps have been developed and fortified over several decades, it is not only surprising but also a breath of fresh air to find a completely unique and genuinely new contribution to the debate.Įven if Mehmet Tabak were to fail in his project, which he does not, the sheer ingenuity and unexplored territory he is able to develop within former traversed roads, warrants the reading of this new book (his first). Finally, there is the camp, notably occupied by Norman Geras, that tries to show that human nature is not logically inconsistent with Marx’s Sixth Thesis, but does not offer a positive account of what Marx’s theory of human nature is. There is also a camp, that I believe Sean Sayers occupies, that says that although Marx’s theory of human nature is fluid, it still ensures the retention of his humanist views, and a humanist philosophy in general. Others believe that not only is a static theory of human nature impossible in any serious historical materialist account of human development, but that Marx explicitly rejected such a theory in his Sixth Thesis. Thus, the term “species-being” may be jettisoned, but the concept remains in Marx’s mature works. Some, like Ernest Mandel, believe that what Marx wrote in his youth is continued and further adapted in his later works. Several camps have emerged within this debate. However, after his Theses on Feuerbach, philosophers debate whether a Marxian theory of human nature is even possible given Marx’s new historical materialist framework. In his earlier works he regularly employs notions like “species-being”, “human essence”, and “human nature”. At first glance Marx seems to have held conflicting views about human nature.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |