Duhring believed that he had set out a series of eternal and absolute truths by his method, relating to natural philosophy, applicable everywhere in the universe. On that basis, he argued that this same method made possible the identification of similar truths in the realm of moral philosophy, much as did Kant with his categorical imperative. Of course, Duhring had done no such thing, in the realm of natural philosophy, and he does no better when it comes to moral philosophy.
“We refrain from giving samples of the mish-mash of platitudes and oracular sayings, in a word, of the simple balderdash with which Herr Dühring regales his readers for full fifty pages as the deep-rooted science of the elements of consciousness. We will cite only this:
“He who can think only by means of language has never yet learnt what is meant by abstract and authentic thought”.” (p 105)
As Engels notes, on that basis, every animal must be the most abstract and authentic thinker. Indeed, so would be human infants, before they learn to talk, and yet the work of Piaget identified that humans do not properly learn to think abstractly until around the age of 15. Gramsci also identified the importance of language in relation to thinking, writing that those who use language poorly, and are careless with grammar, also tend to think in the same kind of careless and undisciplined manner.
Engels notes that Duhring puts his argument about the application of these rules to all celestial bodies at the start of this section on morals and laws. The reasoning is that, by establishing a universalisability to all worlds, it is easier for him to, then, argue that these rules are absolute and eternal for the one celestial body, Earth.
Engels paraphrases Duhring's comments.
“The world of morals, 'just as much as the world of knowledge in general ', has 'its permanent principles and simple elements'. Moral principles stand 'above history and above present differences in national characteristics... The special truths out of which a more complete moral consciousness, and, so to speak, conscience are built up in the course of evolution,, may, in so far as their ultimate basis is understood, claim a validity and range similar to mathematical insights and their applications.'” (p 106)
As with the rest of Duhring's writing, there is nothing really new in this approach. The attempt to apply the laws and methods of mathematics to philosophy was the foundation of Cartesian philosophy. As previously noted,, in relation to morals, it is the basis of Kant's categorical imperative. Duhring, as with Proudhon, really just picks up and regurgitates these ideas. There is nothing new in Duhring's approach compared to that of Proudhon, previously dismantled by Marx in The Poverty of Philosophy.
“'Genuine truths are absolutely immutable ... so that it is altogether stupid to think that the correctness of knowledge is something that can be affected by time and changes in reality'” (p 106)
No comments:
Post a Comment