Talk:Marx's theory of human nature
|WikiProject Socialism||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Sociology||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
My Theory Of Everything, definition of evolution, covers also ALL aspects of anthropology:
Theory Of Everything Without Strings Attached. It Is Embarassingly Obvious And Simple. See the signature links.
Life's Genesis Was Not Cells But First Gene's Self Reproduction. Life Is Just Another Mass Format.
Since July 5 1997 I have developed and been proposing the following scenario of life's genesis:
- Life's genesis was not cell(s), but the self reproduction of yet uncelled ungenomed gene(s).
- There was NOT any "Pre-History Of Life" evolving in an archaic pre-modern life cell.
- Cells were definitely NOT life's genesis. Cells were products of evolution of Earth's primal organisms, of Earth's first stratum organisms, the RNA genes that have always been and still are running the show of life, the energy-storing biosphere survival, since Earth life's day one.
- A gene's self reproduction was distinctly an evolutionary, enhanced energy constraint event, above the earlier, random, radiated-energy-induced genes formations.
- Every evolutionary step is inherently an event of an enhanced energy constraint.
- Genomes, RNA and DNA, are functional organs evolved by the primary RNA genes. Cell membranes are also functional organs evolved by the primary RNA gene.
- Life is but one of the many many mass formats in the universe, and its evolution is driven as the evolution of all cosmic mass formats, to gain temporary enhanced energy constraint, i.e. to survive as long as possible.
Dov Henis (Comments From The 22nd Century) 03.2010 Updated Life Manifest http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/54.page#5065 Cosmic Evolution Simplified http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/240/122.page#4427 Gravity Is The Monotheism Of The Cosmos http://www.the-scientist.com/community/posts/list/260/122.page#4887 18.104.22.168 (talk) 02:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
Gattungswesen is not identical to human nature, and Marx of course criticized the conception of an eternal and universal human nature (concerning reversal of recent edits). Regards, Santa Sangre 22:39, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Furthermore, you can't extrapolate from Norman Geras' book (no matter how good it is) and claim that's all that can be said. It is not generally admitted that Marx conceived of an eternal & universal nature! Santa Sangre 22:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, it seems like a better title for this article would be "Marx's theory on species-being" or "on gattungswesen", although I'd be inclined to go with the english translation, since this is an english site, and that is the translation that is most likely to be searched.AnieHall (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
I removed this paragraph from the "Humans as free, purposive producers" section:
Can Marx's claims be substantiated? Allen Wood wrote that 'Marx gives no real argument for identifying labour or production as the most basic or essential human function' but that ‘human history (on Marx’s theory) is best made intelligible in terms of [the assumption that there is something such as] the fundamental human aspiration to develop and exercise the productive powers of society. Consequently, we have good evidence for regarding this as the fundamental or chief human good’. This claim seems to rely on the premise that the expansion of the productive forces in history can be attributed to the creative nature of humans. It's debatable whether this characterisation should be allowed though - see the below section on historical materialism. However, many of Marx's contentions are fairly strong intuitions for many people. It does seem to be characteristic of humans to make plans for what they build and what they do. And it does seem that humans do have a tendency to create which transcends the manufacture of what is necessary for survival.
It seemed to me that this was more critical analysis/discussion than encyclopaedic explanation, so I was bold and took it out. I was a little unsure about removing such a large block of text, however, so I'm putting this here. --superioridad (discusión) 02:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
This reads like an essay, not a bad one, but not an encyclopedic article. It needs to be more inclusive of a variety of opinions (and not just in a polemical way).--Jack Upland (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
During my search on Marx's work, I stumbled on this essay, which looks like a complete copy of the article. I am unsure as to which one came first, but someone mentionned the essay format of the article, so I figured I would point it out. I'm not sure what to make of this, any idea?
- Hmm... I looked at the essay, and they are for the most part the same. but the wikipedia article is older than the essay. it looks more like this article was copied and posted on that website, perhaps by the main author? tough to say.AnieHall (talk) 19:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that analytical Marxism has been widely discredited and ignored by major theorists, why are some of the words in caps in Cohen's so called 'criticism' (to call it that is to give it more credit than it deserves, i mean really..):
Consequently, Cohen believes, 'A person does need to develop and ENJOY his POWERS, he needs to gain and gain until he is the best and no one else can overpower him, people are BAD" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 20:33, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what the point of the above comment is. Are you suggesting that the only theorist cited in for criticisms should be removed? If you have a good source that criticises the criticism, that could be included as well? although it might be better included on the analytical Marxism page if it isn't already? If some words are incorrectly capitalised, you could fix that... ? I don't think the section on Cohen's criticism was intended to be a propaganda piece, but if it reads like that, perhaps more neutral wording could be suggested, or added where obvious?
- On another note, the citations are unclear -- I think foot notes would be easier to follow. It also appears that uncited material may have been added at some point in time.AnieHall (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, I've deleted the following:
- Consequently, Cohen believes, 'A person does need to develop and ENJOY his POWERS, he needs to gain and gain until he is the best and no one else can overpower him, people are BAD" He must, as Hegel saw, find something outside himself which he did not create, and to which something inside himself corresponds, because of the social process that created him' (p156).
The Difference Between the Democritean and Epicurean Philosophy of Nature
Remarkable fact that the editors have neglected to discuss Marx's doctoral dissertation, where Marx presents his first appreciation of the concept of nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)