www.newsandletters.org
|
|
NEWS & LETTERS, November 2004Iranian PHILOSOPHY AND REVOLUTION offers 'critical grasp'
TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE TO THE NEW FARSI PHILOSOPHY AND
REVOLUTION (excerpts) Philosophy and Revolution? In the age of great doubts?
In the age of human despair in which there is not even a dim light illuminating
the way ahead? This is the epoch in which strangers no longer embrace. Human
beings are so disappointed with a life which even in caricature does not
resemble what previous times had handed down, that they can not go forward in
darkness. How strange it sounds to say philosophy and revolution. The first sentence of Lukacs’ THEORY OF THE NOVEL is
the following: "So fortunate are the times in which a sky full of stars is
the map for all the possible pathways." The epoch of epics, according to
Lukacs, did not need to be questioned because it had all the answers. But epic
humans in the 20th century faced the many questions that arose out of each event
and stubbornly looked for answers. Sometimes events were shaped as a result of
questions that demanded answers in practice. The bitter and unfortunate
experiences of this century were inseparable from a simple and doubtful
question: What happens after the revolution? The experiences of the many
revolutions and liberation movements that had failed and aborted no longer allow
us to answer this question with a subjectivist and predetermined answer. Dreams
stop in front of this red line, and are forced to reflect on themselves. Each
new beginning (unlike the 19th century) is forced to deal with this question. We
are hungry for an answer to this question. It is said that happy times don’t have philosophies,
i.e., all humans are philosophers in these times. In our tragic times in which
human identity has been lost in uniformity and the global village, we
desperately need philosophy. According to Hegel, philosophy is the "Thought
of its Time" and deliberation on the dominant Spirit. But in times that
aren’t too distant, we were going down paths that led to dead ends. We were
reading Georges Politzer’s FUNDAMENTALS OF PHILOSOPHY which taught us that
every question has been answered and all we need is to stretch a hand to take
the fruit of human knowledge from the tree of knowledge. This was possible in a
land in which there was no room for exploration, research and "the labor,
patience and suffering of the negative." We accepted the dominant
traditions in a slogan-like manner and concluded that there was no need for
further exploration. The great masters had answered all the questions. And what
is interesting is that we didn’t know what the great masters had said. Yes, we
studied philosophy and supposedly thought dialectically, but in practice that
meant fitting all social and natural phenomena into pre-made molds on the basis
of the principles of so-called "dialectics." What we didn’t know was that "the dialectic is
not an objective scheme, definitively articulated, and then ‘applied’ and
adapted to a variety of situations. In the course of praxis the human subject
constantly reinvents its revolutionary dialectic." Dialectics is not a
"method of thought," but needs "to be situated in and for
itself" (Louis Dupré, Preface to the 1989 PHILOSOPHY AND REVOLUTION). The collapse of Communist regimes which had shackled
human beings in the name of Marxism brought great joy to many in the world. But
the establishment of "free market capitalism" has not liberated human
beings, and has led to an intensification of inequalities. In this situation,
there is an enormous void in thought regarding an alternative. All kinds of
chauvinistic nationalisms and retrogressive thoughts have come on the scene. At
the same time, a mass movement against globalization of capital and war and
terrorism is growing in various parts of the world. But just at this time, when a critical grasp of the
capitalist system is urgent, large segments of left intellectuals have abandoned
the task of developing, enriching and clarifying the conceptual foundations that
are needed. Post Marxism has given its place to Postmodernism with its
principles of probability, discontinuity and breaks and its hostility to any
concept of totality, system, structure, process and "grand
narratives." By promoting Nietzsche’s theory of the innateness of the
struggle for power, and a one-sided and dangerous cultural relativism,
Postmodernism has rejected any alternative which involves the self-development
of the human being and new human relations as its goal... The greatest difficulty in reading this book will be
encountered in the first chapter in which Dunayevskaya examines Hegel’s
philosophy. There is no doubt that many readers will find this chapter difficult
to understand. Three major works of Hegel, the PHENOMENOLOGY OF MIND, SCIENCE OF
LOGIC and the PHILOSOPHY OF MIND, are explored through an examination of one
central Hegelian category, absolute negativity. Unfortunately Persian readers
only have access to some translations of works about Hegel (1) and not the
translations of his original works. None of Hegel’s major works have been
translated into Persian.(2) Therefore most intellectuals don’t know much about
what Hegel said, unless they know European languages. Let’s remember that
reading Hegel is even difficult for Germans. Hegel would have abhorred the idea
of seeming easy to understand. Hegel wrote his first major work, the PHENOMENOLOGY OF
MIND (3), under the impact of the French Revolution, a revolution that started
with the promise of "liberty, equality, fraternity" and ended with the
reign of terror. In parts of the PHENOMENOLOGY OF MIND such as "Absolute
Freedom and Terror," the question of the insufficiency of the philosophy of
the Enlightenment in confronting the horrible internal contradictions of the
French Revolution are clearly expressed. As against the prevalent view that
reduces Hegel’s philosophy and dialectics to the concepts of "thesis,
antithesis, synthesis," these categories are not Hegel’s. Hegel’s
dialectic presents the category of negativity as the continuous development of
the idea of freedom. This negativity is derived from the concept of
transcendence in which one logical category negates the previous one but
comprehends its content and elevates it to a higher stage. In his "Critique
of the Hegelian Dialectic," Marx called Hegel’s dialectic of negativity
the "moving and creative principle," despite his intense critique of
Hegel’s PHILOSOPHY OF RIGHT and Hegel’s reconciliation with the Prussian
state. Marx wrote: "Hegel comprehends the self-production of the human
being as a process, regards objectification as contraposition, as
externalization and as the transcendence of this externalization ... the true
active relation of the human being to himself/herself as species essence, that
is as human essence is possible only because the human being actually produces
all the capacities of his/her species--and this again is only possible thanks to
the collective activity of human beings, is possible only as a result of
history." Basing herself on this view of Marx, Dunayevskaya
emphasized the category of "absolute negativity" or "second
negativity" in her own return to Hegel. In Hegel’s philosophy, the first
negative merely expresses what one is against. But "second negativity"
or "absolute negativity" contains a positive or affirmative content
and further develops the idea of freedom. As against most Marxist and
non-Marxist philosophers who see in Hegel’s "absolute," an "end
of history," "end of contradictions," or "escape from
reality," Dunayevskaya claims that the category of absolute negativity is a
new beginning and contains "a logic by which humans make themselves
free." In her view, these concepts are most clearly expressed in the final
chapters of Hegel’s major works: Absolute Knowledge in the PHENOMENOLOGY OF
MIND (1807), Absolute Idea in the SCIENCE OF LOGIC (1812), and Absolute Mind in
the PHILOSOPHY OF MIND (1830). Februrary 2004 ======== End Notes 1. These translations include the following: THE
PHILOSOPHY OF HEGEL by Stace, translated by Dr. Hamid Enayat; HEGEL by Jacques
D'Hondt, translated by Mohammad Jaafar Puyandeh; HEGEL by Peter Singer,
translated by Ezzatollah Fuladvand; THE PHILOSOPHY OF HEGEL by Leo Rauch,
translated by Abdul Ali Dastgheib, and HEGEL'S THOUGHT by Roger Garaudy,
translated by Bagher Parham. 2. Except the Preface to Hegel's PHENOMENOLOGY OF MIND
which has been translated by Dr. Mahmud Ebadian. 3. Hegel's writings prior to 1807 are knows as the Early Writings of the Jena period. They include SYSTEM DER SITTLICHKEIT 1802-1803. |
|
Home l News & Letters Newspaper l Back issues l News and Letters Committees l Dialogues l Raya Dunayevskaya l Contact us l Search Published by News and Letters Committees |
