Comments on: Science of Logic Reading Group: To Be or Not To Be

By: Roughtheory.org » Science of Logic Reading Group: The Most Stubborn Error

Roughtheory.org » Science of Logic Reading Group: The Most Stubborn Error — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 00:53:22 +0000

[...] sorts of posts, such that the most recent listing of posts on the topic is still the one contained here. The in-person reading group is, however, still meeting (although the group took a break itself for [...]

By: Roughtheory.org » HSS2008 Paper

Roughtheory.org » HSS2008 Paper — Fri, 15 Feb 2008 14:34:54 +0000

[...] I’ve been writing on the blog, particularly in relation to the reading group posts for the Science of Logic and Phenomenology of Spirit. I had no idea, to be honest, that bringing this material together [...]

By: N Pepperell

N Pepperell — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 03:38:17 +0000

Hey Bob – Sorry you were held in moderation – anti-spam measure – it should happen only the first time you post. I’ve had a similar reaction, in terms of working back and forth between Hegel and Marx, and have explored a bit of my sense of their relationship in some of the other posts here. Thanks as well for the reading suggestions.

By: Roughtheory.org » From Something, Nothing Comes

Roughtheory.org » From Something, Nothing Comes — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 00:29:25 +0000

[...] In the chapter draft, I’m working on a specific tension. On the one hand, Marx criticises, for example, the political economists for exempting their own position from their analysis [...]

By: Bob Lippold

Bob Lippold — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 23:43:31 +0000

Thanks for establishing this reading group.

I embarked on the SL in the quest of incorporating the Dialectical way of thinking.

Works I’m finding helpful in digesting the SL are Justus Hartnack’s “Introduction to Hegel’s Logic” and David Gray Carlson’s “A Commentary on Hegel’s Science of Logic”

Already, the bit of exposure I’ve now had to the SL have really opened a window into “Capital”–giving insight into the way Marx approached the subject and then presented it.

Thank you.

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 15:27:37 +0000

Actually, that does help in regards to Smith’s work. I’m especially interested in the relation between materialism and idealism – for its own philosophical importance and for its significance to Marxism – so Smith sounds like a good read for that. I’ve approached the Logic with the hypothetical position of it being an idealist perspective, working within the medium of pure thought and its transcendental categories. As I read it, I’m looking for areas where it disrupts this sort of pure idealist position and incorporates materialist aspects, so Smith may be a good place to start too. Thanks!

By: Roughtheory.org » Let It Be

Roughtheory.org » Let It Be — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 11:25:22 +0000

[...] intensely enjoying the discussion of this section started by Alexei’s reflections over at Now-Times. [...]

By: N Pepperell

N Pepperell — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:57:17 +0000

Hey Nick – Yes, I do know Tony Smith’s work – and your comment reminds me that I need to thread comments on it through the apparatus particularly of the chapter I’ve just written. I think I tend to reference Patrick Murray more because there’s something about the way Murray “attacks” a somewhat similar argument, that sort of… er… reminds me more of how I tend to think… ;-) From memory, I found myself agreeing with a number of Smith’s claims (as well as, of course, his overarching argument that Capital is structured as a “logic”), but finding the way he made his way into those claims didn’t quite capture what I was trying to draw attention to? But this is a very internal, sort of thesis-strategic, reaction on my part, rather than a criticism of his work. (He has a fairly accessible style, which is a benefit given the complexity of this material – although he skims the surface a bit, particularly in his presentation of Hegel, and he also focusses more on thematic issues – which gives a nice way “in”, actually, to a lot of what’s going on in Capital – just, again, not quite the same things I’m trying to draw attention to – which is, of course, not a criticism of Smith’s work.) But I should discuss the relation of my argument to his much more explicitly than I have (not that this would be visible on the blog, as I tend to shove these sorts of discussions down into footnotes, but your comment reminds me that I haven’t done this adequately).

Again from memory, Smith does a good job of capturing that Hegel isn’t trying to collapse material reality into thought – that Hegel isn’t “idealist” in the way some Marxist theory sometimes takes him to be – and therefore sees a more “Marxian” Hegel than many approaches. Smith doesn’t, I think, quite see the practice-theoretic elements in Marx that I do – and, as a consequence, regards the “categorial” organisation of Capital as a less specific claim than I do, about the character of the practices constitutive of the reproduction of capital, and also perhaps understands a bit differently than I would the relationship between the categorial and “empirical” or contingent bits of Capital (I think – I should stress that I can’t comment seriously, as I don’t have Smith’s book with me, and so this is all distant memory). I think Smith probably doesn’t catch as well as Murray the complex philosophical references that run through Capital. He does do a nice job, though, with a categorisation of the history of debate over Marx’s relationship to Hegel…

Not sure if that helps with the decision of whether to read him or not :-)

On the reading group itself, I think many of us are grappling with the text and trying to understand it – I wouldn’t hold back on commenting for fear that others already have a very firm “reading”. Raising questions can be as useful as anything else, I suspect. Hope you have the chance to chime in as time and interest permits. :-)

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:53:00 +0000

By the way – have you heard of or read Tony Smith’s “The Logic of Marx’s Capital: Replies to Hegelian Criticisms”? I picked it up cheap a while ago on a recommendation, but haven’t yet made my way through it. It sounds perfectly suited to your work here though…

By: Nick

Nick — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 00:50:23 +0000

Hi N. Pepperell!
I just wanted to say thanks for collecting all these links together and for your (and the others’) work on Hegel’s Logic. I’m trying to make my way through it too, so I’m finding all this writing on it extremely helpful. It’s my intro to Hegel (not including secondary work), so it’s a bit rough at the moment. My concern right now is just to begin to understand it, but if I have any substantial comments to make, I’ll be sure to chime in!
Cheers,
-Nick