Search results

1

Object-Oriented Ontology and Commodity Fetishism: Kant, Marx, Heidegger, and Things

100%

Harman G.

Eidos. A Journal for Philosophy of Culture

|

2017

|

vol. 1

|

issue 2

28-36

EN

There have been several criticisms of Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) from the political Left. Perhaps the most frequent one has been that OOO’s aspiration to speak of objects apart from all their relations runs afoul of Marx’s critique of “commodity fetishism.” The main purpose of this article is to show that even a cursory reading of the sections on commodity in Marx’s Capital does not support such an accusation. For Marx, the sphere of entities that are not commodities is actually quite wide, including all the beings of nature not subject to exchange, as well as bartered goods, and tithes and rents paid in kind to feudal lords. In short, the theory of commodity fetishism is a theory of v a l u e, not an anti-realist theory of b e i n g, and thus does not touch on OOO at all. In closing, I make some brief comments on Marx’s relation to Kantian formalism and to Heidegger’s famous account of present-at-hand (vorhanden) and ready-to-hand (zuhanden).

2

Introduction and English Summaries

51%

Sztuka i Dokumentacja

|

2019

|

issue 20

42-44

3

Bogusław JASIŃSKI, Rewolucja jako odpowiedź na pytanie jeszcze nie zadane

51%

Jasiński B.

Sztuka i Dokumentacja

|

2019

|

issue 20

21-40

PL

Rozprawka niniejsza opisuje główne założenia i problemy młodzieńczej pracy Georga Lukacsa „Historia i świadomość klasowa” ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem kwestii rewolucji. Autor koncentruje się przede wszystkim na paradygmatycznym przedstawieniu zagadnienia nie wdając się w analizę historycznych kontekstów tej problematyki. Ten punkt widzenia z kolei w naturalny sposób odsyłać musi do zagadnień stricte filozoficznych takich jak pojęcie „filozoficzności” marksizmu, krytyka pozytywistycznego dziedzictwa problematyki teoriopoznawczej z kontemplacyjnym pojmowaniem procesu historycznego, rola podmiotu w dziejach, wpływ metodologii nauk przyrodniczych na metodologię badań społecznych. Na tle tej problematyki pokazujemy dalej możliwość zmiany społecznej – czyli systemowej rewolucji.

XX

In this paper I aim to examine the implementation of the Marxian programme of intellectually transcending the “philosophicity” of philosophy by the Hungarian Marxist, Georg Lukács. I will analyse the book by Lukács, History and Class Consciousness, which I regard to be the best example of a non-philosophical interpretation of Marxism. This fact is the source of the legend of this book, a legend that attributes to the fieriness of revolutionary enquiries as the direct expression of a particular, equally revolutionary historical situation. Let us consider the book, however, not from the point of view of its legend, but from the angle of its current, contemporary content. ‘Commodity fetishism’ is doubtlessly the most important problem to which Lukács devotes much of his attention in this book. All the remaining contents of the book, in fact, result from analysis of this central problem. In particular, the question of subjective-objective identity, with all the consequences it has for the revolutionary movement, directly stems from description of the phenomenon of commodity fetishism and alienation. Let us note that Marks`s thought proceeded along similar lines, recognizing reification and alienation as the social basis for divisions into being and thinking, theory and its object, etc.

4

“There is no Marxist theory of meaning”. Division of linguistic labor and ideology

45%

Klewenhagen A., Klewenhagen A.

Przegląd Filozoficzny. Nowa Seria

|

2018

|

issue 4

Refine search results

2 Sztuka i Dokumentacja

1 Eidos. A Journal for Philosophy of Culture

1 Przegląd Filozoficzny. Nowa Seria

1 Harman G.

1 Jasiński B.

1 Klewenhagen A.

2 2019

1 2018

1 2017

Object-Oriented Ontology and Commodity Fetishism: Kant, Marx, Heidegger, and Things

Introduction and English Summaries

Bogusław JASIŃSKI, Rewolucja jako odpowiedź na pytanie jeszcze nie zadane

“There is no Marxist theory of meaning”. Division of linguistic labor and ideology