Gramsci and idealism

[AshvinP]

‘As a result even the philosophy of praxis tends to become an ideology in the worst sense of the world... This is particularly true when … it is confused with vulgar materialism, with its metaphysics of “matter” which is necessarily eternal and absolute.’ (SPN 407)

‘According to the theory of praxis it is evident that is it not atomic theory that explains human history but the other way about..’ (SPN 468).

I will update this thread with more posts on an irregular basis. Anyone is welcome to make comments, as I will make a table of contents if the thread gets unwieldy.

That is a key point. American pragmatism does not seem much different from "absolute idealism" and "praxis" process philosophy based on the Wiki and quotes provided ("absolute idealism" is an odd label for a philosophy which wants to stay away from absolutes), except the former does not explicitly endorse any political economic theory. It is representative of many people across the entire political spectrum, except for the very tail extremes. Marxism and neo-Marxism have never done a good job staying away from such extremes, which makes me think there is something underlying the theory, which is no doubt metaphysical, and makes its genuine adopters always seek out extreme political 'solutions'. In that sense, they are anti-pragmatic worldviews.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Lou ... why do I get the impression that you'd be the guy who would go to a chess club where there's a rule about not playing poker, and be outraged that such a rule be in place, just by virtue of your contrarian nature.

[JustinG]

Seriously, Justin, I really hope you can get some serious discussion of praxis here. I'm personally pissed that we can't talk of covid and the way ideas fucked everything up in my beloved Brazil, which was positioned with a materialist allopathic health service capable of performing brilliantly.

Ahhh, Lou is personally pissed. I've sent a PM, and that is where I'll deal with your pet peeve. Meanwhile I'll give Justin, or others, an opportunity to respond here in some nuanced way, in the hopes that he can articulate whatever it is that you wish to hear about the tragic situation in Brazil that will make you feel better, and appease your pissed-off-ness.

Dana, that was a confession of personal charge and bias in the name of transparency. I don't really care if folks discuss Brazil. Atrocities and paradoxes abound in lots of places. No, I'm not urging that everyone post their favorite. My general position is reflected in the Yuval Harari recent convid article, which raises the metaphysical issues like "free choice" or the "measurement problem" in a general and nuanced way that points out the central role of politics (certainly dear to Gramsci and the search for praxis). However, that post was quickly removed thus reducing the discussion to being "pissed off."

Here is the Harari article: https://www.ft.com/content/f1b30f2c-84a ... 16796d6841

One key paragraph reads:


The Covid year has exposed an even more important limitation of our scientific and technological power. Science cannot replace politics. When we come to decide on policy, we have to take into account many interests and values, and since there is no scientific way to determine which interests and values are more important, there is no scientific way to decide what we should do.

Even if all our data is accurate and reliable, we should always ask: “What do we count? Who decides what to count? How do we evaluate the numbers against each other?” This is a political rather than scientific task.



Justin, I'd appreciate knowing if you think it's relevant to Gramsci and praxis. PM me if you'd prefer to not open the discussion here.

This could be relevant to Gramsci and praxis, so I have no problem if such a discussion is opened here.

[JustinG]

Returning to Gramsci’s statement which is the main focus of this thread, an obvious question that arises is how absolute idealism could potentially become ‘true’ in a future era. To recap, here is the statement again:

‘Absolute idealism, or at least certain aspects of it, would be a philosophical utopia in the realm of necessity but could become "truth" after the transition from one realm to the other.’

The issue here is that idealism becoming true in a future era suggests an account of ‘truth’ which is provisional or pragmatic in nature, whereas metaphysics is generally construed as relating to the nature of ‘what is’ and which is always true. Gramsci did indeed regard ‘truths’ as provisional in nature. So how to reconcile these positions?

If Gramsci’s position is that all truths are sociohistorically constituted and provisional in nature, then this obviously applies to this position itself. Gramsci does in fact acknowledge the provisional nature of his philosophy (refer to quotes in OP), so there is no internal inconsistency here. Further, given that he acknowledges his own philosophy is sociohistorically constituted, it also follows from his reasoning that in different social circumstances it is conceivable that some form of truth, in which being and knowing are genuinely reconciled, could be attainable. For Gramsci, this would be a situation where ‘truths’ are not distorted by social and ideological factors.

Of course, limited as he is by his own social situatedness, Gramsci cannot ‘know’ for sure what the philosophy of the future will be (and others, such as postmodernist philosophers like Lyotard contend that the realm of freedom would be characterised by the abandonment of all ‘truths’). But Gramsci acknowledges this uncertainty, only saying that absolute idealism ‘could become truth’.

An analogy here could be made with Hegel’s Phenomenology of Spirit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pheno ... _of_Spirit) , in which the varying stages in the development of Spirt throughout history reach their culmination in the absolute knowledge achieved through the philosophy of Hegel (note that Hegel was a big influence on Croce who, in turn, heavily influenced Gramsci) . The difference for Gramsci is that potential reconciliation of knowing and being does not occur in the mind of a philosopher, however great, but in society itself. This social realisation of the goals of philosophy also underpins Gramsci’s emphasis on practice, which is aligned with Marx’s remark that ‘philosophers have only interpreted the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it’.

[Lou Gold]

Here is the Harari article: https://www.ft.com/content/f1b30f2c-84a ... 16796d6841

One key paragraph reads:


The Covid year has exposed an even more important limitation of our scientific and technological power. Science cannot replace politics. When we come to decide on policy, we have to take into account many interests and values, and since there is no scientific way to determine which interests and values are more important, there is no scientific way to decide what we should do.

Even if all our data is accurate and reliable, we should always ask: “What do we count? Who decides what to count? How do we evaluate the numbers against each other?” This is a political rather than scientific task.



Justin, I'd appreciate knowing if you think it's relevant to Gramsci and praxis. PM me if you'd prefer to not open the discussion here.

This could be relevant to Gramsci and praxis, so I have no problem if such a discussion is opened here.
[/quote]

Great Justin. Praxis is the perfect hook upon which to hang the political but I want to assure folks that the topic is the political in general and NOT the convid pandemic or my particular passionate concerns for Brazil.

[Soul_of_Shu]

This could be relevant to Gramsci and praxis, so I have no problem if such a discussion is opened here.

I'm looking forward to a discussion that delves into the Harari piece with some nuanced metaphysical focus too, since if it has been articulated in any way in the article I surely missed it.

[Lou Gold]

This could be relevant to Gramsci and praxis, so I have no problem if such a discussion is opened here.

I'm looking forward to a discussion that delves into the Harari piece with some nuanced metaphysical focus too, since if it has been articulated in any way in the article I surely missed it.

Good Shu. Please hold onto your skepticism because one possible outcome can be a conclusion that metaphysics has little or no relevance for the practical world where the rubber meets the road. OTOH, I'm hoping that a linking of Idealism and Praxis might make metaphysics relevant in practical ways.

[SanteriSatama]

Good Shu. Please hold your skepticism because one possible outcome can be a conclusion that metaphysics has little or no relevance for the practical world where the rubber meets the road. OTOH, I'm hoping that a linking of Idealism and Praxis might make metaphysics relevant in practical ways.

Roughly speaking, materialistic praxis is for extroverts, idealism for ontic introverts - you've heard the slogan "Be. the change you want"

[Soul_of_Shu]

This could be relevant to Gramsci and praxis, so I have no problem if such a discussion is opened here.

I'm looking forward to a discussion that delves into the Harari piece with some nuanced metaphysical focus too, since if it has been articulated in any way in the article I surely missed it.

Good Shu. Please hold your skepticism because one possible outcome can be a conclusion that metaphysics has little or no relevance for the practical world where the rubber meets the road. OTOH, I'm hoping that a linking of Idealism and Praxis might make metaphysics relevant in practical ways.

What is Harari really offering by pointing out that politics as usual is dysfunctional and needs to change. Yet politics as usual isn't about to change while still completely mired in the current deprived paradigm, in the absence of some viable counter-materialist alternative. And politics as usual has no vested interest in changing the paradigm. Where is his nuanced articulation of what such a paradigm could be, that goes beyond the current collective mindset as usual, a mindset that can't hope to solve the problems using the political praxis that is wedded to it. Has he even mentioned a counter-materialist alternative, let alone how to attain it, from which a new political praxis could conceivably be engendered? As far as I'm concerned he'd be better off having a chat with Bernardo about the root of the problem, rather than just pointing to the symptoms.

[Lou Gold]

I'm looking forward to a discussion that delves into the Harari piece with some nuanced metaphysical focus too, since if it has been articulated in any way in the article I surely missed it.

Good Shu. Please hold your skepticism because one possible outcome can be a conclusion that metaphysics has little or no relevance for the practical world where the rubber meets the road. OTOH, I'm hoping that a linking of Idealism and Praxis might make metaphysics relevant in practical ways.

What is Harari really offering by pointing out that politics as usual is dysfunctional and needs to change. Yet politics as usual isn't about to change while still completely mired in the current deprived paradigm, in the absence of some viable counter-materialist alternative. And politics as usual has no vested interest in changing the paradigm. Where is his nuanced articulation of what such a paradigm could be, that goes beyond the current collective mindset as usual, a mindset that can't hope to solve the problems using the political praxis that is wedded to it. Has he even mentioned a counter-materialist alternative, let alone how to attain it, from which a new political praxis could conceivably be engendered? As far as I'm concerned he'd be better off having a chat with Bernardo about the root of the problem, rather than just pointing to the symptoms.

Great Shu. Please hold onto your position. Just understand that I am NOT arguing that Harari has presents a nuanced metaphysical argument. The best I can tell he is a materialist. My position is simply that he reveals something relevant to praxis and Gramsci, which is the theme of this thread and that this may challenge the relevance of the so-called "nuanced metaphysical position" to a practical world in a time of existential crisis.