Comments on: The Proper Pre-eminence of Immanence http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/02/01/the-proper-pre-eminence-of-immanence/ The Sweet Release of Reason Tue, 22 May 2012 20:28:45 +0000 hourly 1 By: Club Troppo » Was Hayek a moral relativist? http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/02/01/the-proper-pre-eminence-of-immanence/#comment-4116 Club Troppo » Was Hayek a moral relativist? Mon, 11 Aug 2008 02:57:19 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=636#comment-4116 [...] is the technique of ‘immanent criticism’ — a form of critique Will Wilkinson calls, "a hallmark of a genuinely liberal, non-utopian cast of mind". Reforming morals in this [...] [...] is the technique of ‘immanent criticism’ — a form of critique Will Wilkinson calls, "a hallmark of a genuinely liberal, non-utopian cast of mind". Reforming morals in this [...]

]]> By: Gareth http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/02/01/the-proper-pre-eminence-of-immanence/#comment-4120 Gareth Wed, 02 Feb 2005 19:16:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=636#comment-4120 The question of Marx's ideas about the validity of moral beliefs is a hard one. All we really have are jibes, but they make it clear that Marx was on the immanentist side (unless you interpret him as a complete moral skeptic or nihilist, which I think is wrong). Marx thought our beliefs, including our moral beliefs, arise out of the conditions of life, which are historically determined. So, Aristotle's theory of the virtues could not have occurred to anyone before the development of a leisure class based on slavery, and Kantian and utilitarian abstractions depend on highly developed commodity production. But for Marx, you can't get "outside" class society, so you can't criticize this, except from within capitalist society. He is willing to say that a more highly productive society in the future will develop different (and, he thinks, better) norms, but he isn't prepared to say what they will be, except in a negative way. He makes fun of socialists who tried to do that, from his early attacks on Proudhon to the Critique of the Gotha Program. So, he is really like Hayek and the later Rawls on this. You can't get outside your historical situation: at most, you can reflect on it critically. The metaphysics is that working class activity will generate a new culture, superior to the old one. But it isn't superior judged form some external standpoint, but superior because it solves the problems capitalism posed. Lenin, on the other hand, hypothesized that certain bourgeois intellectuals could, with the use of "science", obtain a knowledge of history from the outside. The question of Marx’s ideas about the validity of moral beliefs is a hard one. All we really have are jibes, but they make it clear that Marx was on the immanentist side (unless you interpret him as a complete moral skeptic or nihilist, which I think is wrong).

Marx thought our beliefs, including our moral beliefs, arise out of the conditions of life, which are historically determined. So, Aristotle’s theory of the virtues could not have occurred to anyone before the development of a leisure class based on slavery, and Kantian and utilitarian abstractions depend on highly developed commodity production.

But for Marx, you can’t get “outside” class society, so you can’t criticize this, except from within capitalist society. He is willing to say that a more highly productive society in the future will develop different (and, he thinks, better) norms, but he isn’t prepared to say what they will be, except in a negative way. He makes fun of socialists who tried to do that, from his early attacks on Proudhon to the Critique of the Gotha Program.

So, he is really like Hayek and the later Rawls on this. You can’t get outside your historical situation: at most, you can reflect on it critically. The metaphysics is that working class activity will generate a new culture, superior to the old one. But it isn’t superior judged form some external standpoint, but superior because it solves the problems capitalism posed.

Lenin, on the other hand, hypothesized that certain bourgeois intellectuals could, with the use of “science”, obtain a knowledge of history from the outside.

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/02/01/the-proper-pre-eminence-of-immanence/#comment-4119 Will Wilkinson Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:57:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=636#comment-4119 I can see how you might say this about Hegel, sort of, but not about Marx. What I'm talking about is criticizing one's belief system from within the same belief system. Marx's theory of class consciousness provides a reason for refusing to work thiings out within, or even respect, standing belief systems. The Marxist beef against Rawls was partly that the process of reflective equilibrium could do nothing but make little adjustments within the system of bourgeouis morality. I can see how you might say this about Hegel, sort of, but not about Marx. What I’m talking about is criticizing one’s belief system from within the same belief system. Marx’s theory of class consciousness provides a reason for refusing to work thiings out within, or even respect, standing belief systems. The Marxist beef against Rawls was partly that the process of reflective equilibrium could do nothing but make little adjustments within the system of bourgeouis morality.

]]> By: Gareth http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/02/01/the-proper-pre-eminence-of-immanence/#comment-4118 Gareth Wed, 02 Feb 2005 13:17:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=636#comment-4118 Reliance on immanent criticism is, I believe, a hallmark of a genuinely liberal, non-utopian cast of mind. Maybe, although Marx and Hegel were both on the immanent criticism team.(They may, actually have been more on the liberal team than their friends and enemies have tended to think, but that's another tale.) Reliance on immanent criticism is, I believe, a hallmark of a genuinely liberal, non-utopian cast of mind.

Maybe, although Marx and Hegel were both on the immanent criticism team.(They may, actually have been more on the liberal team than their friends and enemies have tended to think, but that’s another tale.)

]]> By: monkyboy http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/02/01/the-proper-pre-eminence-of-immanence/#comment-4117 monkyboy Wed, 02 Feb 2005 03:03:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=636#comment-4117 Wow, I tried to look up linguistic descriptivism in the dictionary, no go. I googled it and only got 25 hits. Fortunately, Johns Hopkins had this helpful guide: Linguistics is torn, as any discipline is, by internal disagreements: structuralists versus transformational-generativists, prescriptivists versus descriptivists, empiricists versus rationalists, formalists (phonologists, morphologists, syntacticians, semanticians, textlinguists) versus contextualists (sociolinguists, psycholinguists, geolinguists, social semioticians, pragmaticians, discourse analysts). That's pretty clear, hehe. It takes more than big words to turn a pseudoscience into a real science. Eventually, it has to produce something of actual value to humans... Wow, I tried to look up linguistic descriptivism in the dictionary, no go. I googled it and only got 25 hits. Fortunately, Johns Hopkins had this helpful guide:

Linguistics is torn, as any discipline is, by internal disagreements: structuralists versus transformational-generativists, prescriptivists versus descriptivists, empiricists versus rationalists, formalists (phonologists, morphologists, syntacticians, semanticians, textlinguists) versus contextualists (sociolinguists, psycholinguists, geolinguists, social semioticians, pragmaticians, discourse analysts).

That’s pretty clear, hehe. It takes more than big words to turn a pseudoscience into a real science. Eventually, it has to produce something of actual value to humans…

]]> By: monkyboy http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/02/01/the-proper-pre-eminence-of-immanence/#comment-4111 monkyboy Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=636#comment-4111 Wow, I tried to look up linguistic descriptivism in the dictionary, no go. I googled it and only got 25 hits. Fortunately, Johns Hopkins had this helpful guide: Linguistics is torn, as any discipline is, by internal disagreements: structuralists versus transformational-generativists, prescriptivists versus descriptivists, empiricists versus rationalists, formalists (phonologists, morphologists, syntacticians, semanticians, textlinguists) versus contextualists (sociolinguists, psycholinguists, geolinguists, social semioticians, pragmaticians, discourse analysts). That's pretty clear, hehe. It takes more than big words to turn a pseudoscience into a real science. Eventually, it has to produce something of actual value to humans... Wow, I tried to look up linguistic descriptivism in the dictionary, no go. I googled it and only got 25 hits. Fortunately, Johns Hopkins had this helpful guide:

Linguistics is torn, as any discipline is, by internal disagreements: structuralists versus transformational-generativists, prescriptivists versus descriptivists, empiricists versus rationalists, formalists (phonologists, morphologists, syntacticians, semanticians, textlinguists) versus contextualists (sociolinguists, psycholinguists, geolinguists, social semioticians, pragmaticians, discourse analysts).

That’s pretty clear, hehe. It takes more than big words to turn a pseudoscience into a real science. Eventually, it has to produce something of actual value to humans…

]]> By: Gareth http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/02/01/the-proper-pre-eminence-of-immanence/#comment-4112 Gareth Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=636#comment-4112 Reliance on immanent criticism is, I believe, a hallmark of a genuinely liberal, non-utopian cast of mind. Maybe, although Marx and Hegel were both on the immanent criticism team.(They may, actually have been more on the liberal team than their friends and enemies have tended to think, but that's another tale.) Reliance on immanent criticism is, I believe, a hallmark of a genuinely liberal, non-utopian cast of mind.

Maybe, although Marx and Hegel were both on the immanent criticism team.(They may, actually have been more on the liberal team than their friends and enemies have tended to think, but that’s another tale.)

]]> By: Will Wilkinson http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/02/01/the-proper-pre-eminence-of-immanence/#comment-4113 Will Wilkinson Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=636#comment-4113 I can see how you might say this about Hegel, sort of, but not about Marx. What I'm talking about is criticizing one's belief system from within the same belief system. Marx's theory of class consciousness provides a reason for refusing to work thiings out within, or even respect, standing belief systems. The Marxist beef against Rawls was partly that the process of reflective equilibrium could do nothing but make little adjustments within the system of bourgeouis morality. I can see how you might say this about Hegel, sort of, but not about Marx. What I’m talking about is criticizing one’s belief system from within the same belief system. Marx’s theory of class consciousness provides a reason for refusing to work thiings out within, or even respect, standing belief systems. The Marxist beef against Rawls was partly that the process of reflective equilibrium could do nothing but make little adjustments within the system of bourgeouis morality.

]]> By: Gareth http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/02/01/the-proper-pre-eminence-of-immanence/#comment-4114 Gareth Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=636#comment-4114 The question of Marx's ideas about the validity of moral beliefs is a hard one. All we really have are jibes, but they make it clear that Marx was on the immanentist side (unless you interpret him as a complete moral skeptic or nihilist, which I think is wrong). Marx thought our beliefs, including our moral beliefs, arise out of the conditions of life, which are historically determined. So, Aristotle's theory of the virtues could not have occurred to anyone before the development of a leisure class based on slavery, and Kantian and utilitarian abstractions depend on highly developed commodity production. But for Marx, you can't get "outside" class society, so you can't criticize this, except from within capitalist society. He is willing to say that a more highly productive society in the future will develop different (and, he thinks, better) norms, but he isn't prepared to say what they will be, except in a negative way. He makes fun of socialists who tried to do that, from his early attacks on Proudhon to the Critique of the Gotha Program. So, he is really like Hayek and the later Rawls on this. You can't get outside your historical situation: at most, you can reflect on it critically. The metaphysics is that working class activity will generate a new culture, superior to the old one. But it isn't superior judged form some external standpoint, but superior because it solves the problems capitalism posed. Lenin, on the other hand, hypothesized that certain bourgeois intellectuals could, with the use of "science", obtain a knowledge of history from the outside. The question of Marx’s ideas about the validity of moral beliefs is a hard one. All we really have are jibes, but they make it clear that Marx was on the immanentist side (unless you interpret him as a complete moral skeptic or nihilist, which I think is wrong).

Marx thought our beliefs, including our moral beliefs, arise out of the conditions of life, which are historically determined. So, Aristotle’s theory of the virtues could not have occurred to anyone before the development of a leisure class based on slavery, and Kantian and utilitarian abstractions depend on highly developed commodity production.

But for Marx, you can’t get “outside” class society, so you can’t criticize this, except from within capitalist society. He is willing to say that a more highly productive society in the future will develop different (and, he thinks, better) norms, but he isn’t prepared to say what they will be, except in a negative way. He makes fun of socialists who tried to do that, from his early attacks on Proudhon to the Critique of the Gotha Program.

So, he is really like Hayek and the later Rawls on this. You can’t get outside your historical situation: at most, you can reflect on it critically. The metaphysics is that working class activity will generate a new culture, superior to the old one. But it isn’t superior judged form some external standpoint, but superior because it solves the problems capitalism posed.

Lenin, on the other hand, hypothesized that certain bourgeois intellectuals could, with the use of “science”, obtain a knowledge of history from the outside.

]]> By: The Cardinal Collective http://willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2005/02/01/the-proper-pre-eminence-of-immanence/#comment-4115 The Cardinal Collective Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/?p=636#comment-4115 <strong>Do I Deserve My Income?</strong> Elizabeth Anderson says no in one of the most wonderful blog posts I've read in a while. And Will Wilkinson has three good posts starting with an attempt to defeat Anderson's claims and continuing with more discussion of Hayek's theory... Do I Deserve My Income?

Elizabeth Anderson says no in one of the most wonderful blog posts I’ve read in a while. And Will Wilkinson has three good posts starting with an attempt to defeat Anderson’s claims and continuing with more discussion of Hayek’s theory…

]]>