because marx presented us with an anti-philosophy - or so says this work:

Balibar, Étienne. The Philosophy of Marx. Trans. Chris Turner. 1995. London: Verso, 2007.

freely download-able here: http://www.mediafire.com/?myzhcizhonn

Quite right, G.

See also:

Brudney, D. (1998), Marx's Attempt To Leave Philosophy (Harvard University Press).

Are you out of your mind? Whoever you are, get ready for the big surprise.

Yes, Marxism isn't formally a philosophy. Nihilism is the only anti-philosophy I'm aware of.

Althusser wrote alot about Marxist Philosophy. He described Marxism as a scientific method not a philosophy. So he looks at late Marx as Marxism, as a scientific method such as Capital and early Marx as humanistic philosophy, which is not Marxist.

However Althusser noted it is only after every great scientific finding through new revolutionary method (Marx's Historical Materialism and Capital in this latest epoch) the philosophy follows. Althusser viewed Dialectical Materialism as the philosophy that would follow Marx's scientific method and it is only after Marx laid down this foundation that other people could go into detail of a Marxist philosophy.

Althusser expressed these ideas in For Marx. It is either in the "For My English Readers" the "Introduction" or "Contradiction and Overdetermination", I can't remember but that is all I have read so far.

Trivas:

Wittgenstein was also an anti-philosopher, just like Marx, and me.

You're a fucking choir boy compared to me! A choir boy!

CryingAnts:

Ok, so you are a church organ. So what?

What's an anti-philosopher but a philosopher who doesn't know her own premises?

Trivas:

And where did you get that gem from? A Christmas cracker?

Like the anti-concept, the anti-philosophy is a an unnecessary and rationally unusable term designed to replace and obliterate some legitimate philosophy (See what can be learned from right-wing nut cases?)

Trivas:

As I said, we already know you are a dogmatist -- so there really is no need for you to keep on trying to prove it.

Thanks anyway!

Philosophers participate in the practice of philosophy...like Wittgenstein.. Marxists participate in the articulation of Marxist theory.

Philosophers demand, in the face of a remark like this, to have the distinction endlessly explained and defined and therapeutically reviewed.

Marxists do not. They move on.

Gil:

But that would make all philosophers anti-philsophers, then.

Dogmatists like you don't, that's true.

Like headless chickens...

In fact, philosophers ignore superficial comments like this.

so did anyone read even the introductory chapter of balibar's book?

...how about quoting an excerpt from the text and then saying whether you agree or disagree and why?

No, but I will -- but not yet, since I am in the middle of putting the finishing touches to a rather long Essay.

I disagree with this sentiment. Philosophy is the scientific inquiry into some of the more basic issues of reality and human experience. Marx was a philosopher, though he differed from some of his contemporaries in that he tried to apply a methodical, more analytical standard to the studies of philosophy.

It is important, in these cases, to determine what we should call "philosophy" and "science." more important is whether or not they are mutually exclusive, and what qualifies as "non-philosophy" or "non-science." Considering such standards, it can usually be deducted that there are no clear distinctions between the two poles in each case, and more specifically relevant, that between whatever studies philosphy and whatever studies science there is no real differentiating standard.

Dean:

But, Philosophy differs from science in that (1) the latter is committed to the experimental verification or falsification of its theories, and (2) the former aims at discovering theses by thought alone, supposedly true in all possible worlds, and for which experimental evidence is irrelevant. The two disciplines have totally different methodologies and aim at totally different results.

This is quite apart from the fact that Marx specifically rejected philosophy.

Of course, 150 years ago, scientists were called 'natural philosophers', but that is no more reason for us to accept an overlap between the two disciplines than we should accept that science overlaps with theology just because 150 years ago natural theology was also classified as part of what we'd now call science.

Sure, we can re-define the two as overlapping, but then we can also re-define capitalism as 'just and fair', but what would be the point of that?

And chickens with heads, and hens, and pigs and cows and sheep and dogs and ......humans, except philosophers and theologians.

Gil:

Can we have the scientific evidence for this please?