![]() ![]() ![]() Equally the political theorist, or for that matter the everyday activist, has to arrive at some overall view of human action and the considerations which guide it. The biological and behavioural sciences are bound, in working upon and with human material, to reach some general conclusions about the terms that govern man’s actions and transactions. ![]() The problem of mutually ordering the two rationalities is especially urgent in the planes of psychology and social philosophy, since natural science and critical reason must both lay claim to a theory of man. Some recent theorizing has set itself the task of describing the relationship between scientific reason and critical-social reason, and mapping out their respective domains. At the risk of excessive compression, then, we will note that two separate human projects have evolved under the aegis of Reason, each with its characteristic set of institutions, methods and norms. The other was concentrated on a philosophic doctrine of man which insisted on his original goodness and educability this tendency was the prior basis for the critique of social conditions that issued in the Socialist and communist movement. One tendency eliminated metaphysical and religious explanation from the natural order, and eventually merged into the positive sciences. Here they observe two divergent trends stemming from the materialist rationalism of the Enlightenment. IT will be helpful in opening this discussion if we follow a distinction drawn by Marx and Engels in a section on the history of philosophy in The Holy Family. Marked up by Einde O’Callaghan for the Marxists’ Internet Archive. Reproduced here by kind permission of Merlin Press. Peter Sedgwick Natural Science and Human Theory A Critique of Herbert Marcuse (1966)įrom Socialist Register 1966, pp.163-192. Peter Sedgwick: Natural Science and Human Theory (1966) ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |