M-Ponty writes beautifully and there's a seductive quality to his arguments. We return to certain ideas again - one that stays with me is the notion that we are all devoid of innocence, humanity as an essence and humanity as a practice, verb and noun, etc. etc.
There is, however, also something in his text that makes me wary and that's largely because I still have a shaky background in all things revolutionary but I'll try to say why. Perhaps I am not getting the dialectical thrust.
1) I am not sure certain enough has been established for me to be confident in the ability of the proletarian to hand justice, to know the shape of the future that is man for man, that is more close to "humane" than liberalism provides. That is to say, the violence that comes from these practices revolutionary are "better" or "worse" or "less" or "more."It seems to me that he's trying to annul the binaries of good and bad especially in terms of speaking of humane actions but there is an elevated position that is accorded to the revolutionary.
2) It seems to the relation between intention and action is not clear to me. Sometimes only action matters and yet a revolutionary acts because of the idea/intention for a particular world in the present. This presents some difficulty in understanding temporality - present, presentness - "we are not spectators, we are actors in an open history" (92).
In such a situation, I wonder if we are talking about an ebbing and flowing of violence, but never a cessation. Or do I think this way because I cannot see the possibilities that the revolutionary can? Or is it the idea that we have to focus on, not on 'ifs" and "buts"
There are a few passages I would like to think about in terms of why it is so particular to Marxists.
"The Marxist has recognized the mystification involved in the inner life; he lives in the world and in history..." Decision for a Marxist, "consists in questioning our situation in the world, inserting ourselves in the course of events, in properly understanding and expressing the movement of history outside of which values remain empty word and have no other chance of realization" (21).
"Trorsky, Bukharin and Stalin are all opposed to the liberal ethics because it presupposes a given humanity, whereas they aim at making humanity."
There's a lot more. I do think this is a beautiful text. I wish we could read each page and savor it and argue. I agree with other posts, the meaning of all these terms - liberty, violence, peace, justice, humanity, are gradually fading. And perhaps that is why I am also suspicious of revolutionary, proletarian, possibility...
There is, however, also something in his text that makes me wary and that's largely because I still have a shaky background in all things revolutionary but I'll try to say why. Perhaps I am not getting the dialectical thrust.
1) I am not sure certain enough has been established for me to be confident in the ability of the proletarian to hand justice, to know the shape of the future that is man for man, that is more close to "humane" than liberalism provides. That is to say, the violence that comes from these practices revolutionary are "better" or "worse" or "less" or "more."It seems to me that he's trying to annul the binaries of good and bad especially in terms of speaking of humane actions but there is an elevated position that is accorded to the revolutionary.
2) It seems to the relation between intention and action is not clear to me. Sometimes only action matters and yet a revolutionary acts because of the idea/intention for a particular world in the present. This presents some difficulty in understanding temporality - present, presentness - "we are not spectators, we are actors in an open history" (92).
In such a situation, I wonder if we are talking about an ebbing and flowing of violence, but never a cessation. Or do I think this way because I cannot see the possibilities that the revolutionary can? Or is it the idea that we have to focus on, not on 'ifs" and "buts"
There are a few passages I would like to think about in terms of why it is so particular to Marxists.
"The Marxist has recognized the mystification involved in the inner life; he lives in the world and in history..." Decision for a Marxist, "consists in questioning our situation in the world, inserting ourselves in the course of events, in properly understanding and expressing the movement of history outside of which values remain empty word and have no other chance of realization" (21).
"Trorsky, Bukharin and Stalin are all opposed to the liberal ethics because it presupposes a given humanity, whereas they aim at making humanity."
There's a lot more. I do think this is a beautiful text. I wish we could read each page and savor it and argue. I agree with other posts, the meaning of all these terms - liberty, violence, peace, justice, humanity, are gradually fading. And perhaps that is why I am also suspicious of revolutionary, proletarian, possibility...
No comments:
Post a Comment