New APPS🔒 SSL Verified

Table of Contents

• ↓ Foucault, Hyppolite and Marx (part 4): Hyppolite’s Sins, Reconsidered
• ↓ Foucault, Hyppolite and Marx (part 3): Althusser attacks Hyppolite
• ↓ Foucault, Hyppolite and Marx (part 2): Hegel under Erasure
• ↓ Protecting Data: Regulation, Contract, or Privacy
• ↓ Foucault, Hyppolite and Marx (part 1): Have you had your Stalin today?
• ↓ Algorithmic Right to an Explanation (or not) and the non-ideal US Legal System
• ↓ Top Alternatives to newappsblog.com

6-Month Traffic Trend Estimate

Visual representation extracted from newappsblog.com

Content Snippets from newappsblog.com

"I’ve been working out some of the context for Hyppolite’s Logic and Existence and why it might matter for a reading of Marx (one, two, three).  Last time, I looked at Althusser’s 1950 (anonymously published) critique of the use of Hegel in understanding Marx, an essay that seems to be particularly aggrieved by Hyppolite’s work of the late 1940s.  Here I want to turn to the offending Hyppolite essays, since one might want to know what Hyppolite said that was so horrible as to occasion such an acerbic response. Let’s look at a few things: (a) The line Althusser seems most bothered by – the “revision” to which Marx may be subject; (b) an instrumentalization of the proletariat; (c) Hyppolite’s priority on alienation in Marx, and (d) Hyppolite’s musings about the will to power.   I’ll look at the first two of these here, and the second pair next time."

"All of these should be read against a background where Hyppolite leans into the Hegelian background of Marx; the essay on Capital begins by noting that “in order to understand Capital it is absolutely necessary to consult Marx’s philosophical works prior to his economic studies. Marx’s work presupposes an underlying philosophy whose various elements are not easily reconstructed” including Hegel and, sometimes in tension with Hegel and Darwin (Studies on Marx and Hegel, 126). And again:"

"I’m working out a thread (part 1, part 2) suggesting that that Hyppolite’s Logic and Existence (1953), which reads Hegel through the Logic and not the Phenomenology, and thereby pushes a non-humanist reading of Hegel, mattered for the French reading of Marx, which hinged on whether Marx inherited humanism or anthropology from Hegel.  I then looked at the Soviet part of that equation, and how Stalinism required the rejection of Hegel, even as Stalin himself repressed (missed entirely?) the importance of Hegel to his own understanding of dialectics.  Here I want to continue this rather elaborate project of context-setting and say something about how this plays out in France in the person of Althusser."

"Althusser’s anti-Hegelianism in the 1960s is well known and represents the gymnastics necessary to retain an anti-Hegelian view while also discrediting Stalinism, which became important after Krushchev’s destalinization program, which began with a speech in 1956.  In “Contradiction and Overdetermination” (1962) Althusser refers to Hegel’s understanding of supersession [= Aufhebung].  For Hegel, Althusser complains, “the survival of the past as the ‘superseded’ (aufgehoen) is simply reduced to the modality of a memory, which, furthermore, is merely the inverse of (that is, the same thing as) an anticipation” (For Marx, 115; I’m removing his constant italicization)."

Key Topics & Focus Areas for newappsblog.com:

Foucault, Hyppolite and Marx (part 4): Hyppolite’s Sins, Reconsidered

Foucault, Hyppolite and Marx (part 3): Althusser attacks Hyppolite

Foucault, Hyppolite and Marx (part 2): Hegel under Erasure

Protecting Data: Regulation, Contract, or Privacy

Foucault, Hyppolite and Marx (part 1): Have you had your Stalin today?

Algorithmic Right to an Explanation (or not) and the non-ideal US Legal System