I was undertaking the daunting challenge of musing over what the world is all about when, through my musings I was presented with a far more arduous task of trying to figure out what Marx is all about
I must once again stress my disclaimer – I have little to no knowledge of philosophy so my wonders are inaccurate and incomplete. I’m looking for you lot (which I think consists of Euny) to help me out.
Apparently there are two broad approaches that hastily present themselves when trying to garble about what constitutes the world and everything else: materialism and idealism.
Materialism would state that ‘matter in motion’ is the fundamental constituent of the universe. It is wholly objective, acting according to its own natural laws. Materialism would hold that thought/emotion is simply a chemical function – to the brain, as urine is to the kidneys
Idealism would approach the universe as being a series of concepts. Matter, as realised through sensory perception is a construct of one of many purely subjective concepts.
Marx is generally described as a materialist. In its strictest sense, outlined above, I have found that to be an inaccurate depiction. It appears that Marx believes that human conceptual reflexes are relevant but are shaped by the objective conditions in which they are experienced. The conditions in which a women (or man) is forced to subside and reproduce her species shape her universe. Her natural depends on how she produces. This half-way house unification between idealism and materialism could be called ‘humanism’. Marx took from the Hegelian dialect that the objective (material) world is experienced entirely subjectively, to assert that the objective reality of the socio-economic nature directs and shapes the subjective experience of it, and vies versa.
In his conception of history, Marx thought it best, therefore to look at the modes of subsistence, and see how that shaped the moods, motivations the subjective realities which led to humanity taking the course it history it did – instead of looking at idealist conceptions such as God, or materialist concepts such as genetics, he approached from this humanist stance to try to understand what compelled history to pan out the way it did, and what compels it to follow the path it currently does. Economic gain, as a key motivation for a woman’s action is what he called a ‘relative drive’, originating from the mode of subsistence she found herself in, and is not, like hunger, a ‘fixed drive’. So he was wary about trying to understand human nature as an overly objective, ahistorical and acontextual force, instead suggesting it is perhaps more of a social consciousness or force.
Marx stated that changes in these ‘relative drives’ caused historical changes. He argued that such epoch changes would occur when the mode of social organization began to hamper the productive forces hat allows humanity to subsist. Thus evolution (as opposed to revolution, which implies ending up in the same place) could not be imposed on society, it is caused by a challenge to woman’s ability to subsist, due to the social organisation in which she finds herself in. Such challenges lead to a change in the social consciousness which re-shapes the social organisation to one that allows subsistence.
Maybe I’m being optimistic, but faced with the forces of climate change, peak oil, and gross alienation and inequality; the social organization we find ourselves in seems to be hampering our ability to subside. Time for a change, perhaps?
Forgive me, I am delving into a topic I know little about.
Anyway…
If reason is all the thinking woman has to rely on (faith involves something else) then she is entirely dependent on the division of reality into subject and object. She, the subject does the perceiving of the object, which is perceived. From this distinction reality is released and reason can begin to understand it.
It’s a separation that is fundamental to western enlightenment thinking, instinctive even in language. (That language has always placed the male as subject and female as object is a source of annoyance and oppression – I believe Euny may have some thoughts)
Eastern philosophy however, by which I broadly mean Zen and Tibetan Buddhism, Taoism and Vedic Hinduism, is slightly different. Whilst recognizing the division it stresses that the role of the woman seeking a true understanding of reality, is to remove her ego (self-awareness) and abandon this split. They argue that subject and object are actually a mutually constitutive whole. To see reality in its true light, this must be acknowledged and understood (enlightenment).
The implication of this unity is that the subject perceiver can project itself onto the perceived object, and vies versa. Both can affect their relationship with each other – mind (subject) can affect matter (object). This a western eye this notion seems the rhetoric of self-help guides, yet further reasoned analysis would suggest otherwise. Mind relates to matter by injecting it with meaning – this shapes what we consider to be reality.
Language, a creation of the subject projects meaning into a matter, and changes the relationship and shape of reality.
Perhaps that is as far as it goes, but basic experimental quantum physics has demonstrated that, at any one time matter can be both a particle and a wave, depending on the decision of the perceiver. That is an example of mind deciding the very make up of matter – and implies that subject and object are entangled.
For me, it’s an interesting theoretical notion but far too abstract to apply to my everyday life. However, in the spirit of self help guides (which I despise) I shall depart with ‘an (un)inspiring personal story’
I recently hired a moped. As a naturally clumsy and gawky person this was a decision of immence fun and stupidity. To get out of my place, I had to ride through a fairly narrow gate. Initially I was fine but a couple of days later I drove my leg straight into the wall. Ever since, when approaching the gate, I panicked and the gap seemed narrower. Inevetably I crashed into repeatedly after that and each time it became more difficult. If I had measured the gap with a ruler it would have always been the same. But under the context of driving my mind projected a meaning into that gate which made it become narrower in its relation to me. I know my mind had not affected the matter, but it completely changed my relationship with it, which turned out to be more important, and painful.
