Here's another one for ya... grr... marx - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

ehh19 · 11-14-2005, 11:47 AM

I sort of understand what Marx is saying in this small paragraph but the reasons behind it completely stump me.

"As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production."

Sure, we can say that what people produce and how they do so defines their life... but WHY? why would we say that? I think that the first sentence is throwing me off. what do you guys think?

nezmot · 11-14-2005, 12:02 PM

He's trying to describe the context, the groundwork for whatever he's about to say next. He's making the point that an 'individual' is not some abstract thing, but something that 'does' something. Something that 'produces' something. And if we are going to use this definition of the individual as a producer, then it is important to consider the environment around them that will enable or hinder the individuals ability to produce.

Why would we say that? Well we might be about to try and explain a new theory about organising people into a more productive system. And in doing so, he might be getting all the ground rules and assumptions defined and clarified and out the way, before we got into the real meat of the thing.

Like Euclid carefully defining what a point is, then a line, and then a right angle etc - before going on to create a full theory of geometry. Marx is defining a person in terms of what they can produce before expounding on his theories (whatever they may be?!) on the various socio-political systems in which these people operate.

Furlicker · 11-14-2005, 02:43 PM

I think it was Sartre who said something along the lines of 'for an object, essence precedes existence; for man existence precedes essence'. You can have a blueprint, a plan, (or, for Plato, a 'form') of an object and know what its purpose is before it even exists. Man, on the other hand, comes into the world and then creates/defines/produces himself through his actions.
I didn't know Marx had said this. It's an interesting add-on that he theorizes that man produces himself as a result of his environment. You can see where his argument is going - control the environment and you control the man. Neat.

Furlicker · 11-14-2005, 02:47 PM

I produce things from wood, so I am a carpenter... I make music so I am a musician... I bake bread so I am a baker... I sit and watch tv all day so I am a couch potato...

harry · 11-25-2005, 12:46 PM

I'd just like to add that Marx was of course a materialst and a statement like this is very near to core of his philosophy. To me it seems quite obvious that we are defined by our daily business and environment, so I don't really see your problem with this line of thinking...

BigBen · 11-25-2005, 02:21 PM

Marx was setting up the argument to refute what Smith and Ricardo had postulated for so long: Labour was just another factor in production. Land, Labour and Capital.

Marx had some revolutionary thoughts on Labour, and the value of that labour. It did not coincide with the standard economic thought at the time. He therefore set up his theory very carefully, when talking about the nature of production, and man's place in the economy.

Suave · 11-25-2005, 10:08 PM

Marx believed quite strongly that material goods and economy are the infrastructure of society, and all of society relies upon and revolves around the production of materials for our survival. Hence, the individual finds a great amount of importance personally in what they do make, how they make it, et cetera.

You have to look at what Marx says from a social rather than personal point of view. He was most assuredly a more "macro" theorist, in that he focused on the larger society and its effects on people, rather than vice versa.

Ustwo · 11-26-2005, 03:18 PM

I haven't read Marx in I don't know how long, and without context I'll have some fun with this.

"As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production."

As individuals express their life, so they are.

You are what you do.

What they are, therefore, coincides with their production both with what they produce and with how they produce.

You are what you make/work on.

The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production.

What you are is dependent on your work enviroment.

Sounds like he is going into the plight of the workers here, or is still going on, as again I have this out of context. Since I do not define myself by my work I find it a false concept, at least for me.

TheObserver · 12-16-2005, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Furlicker

I think it was Sartre who said something along the lines of 'for an object, essence precedes existence; for man existence precedes essence'. You can have a blueprint, a plan, (or, for Plato, a 'form') of an object and know what its purpose is before it even exists. Man, on the other hand, comes into the world and then creates/defines/produces himself through his actions.
I didn't know Marx had said this. It's an interesting add-on that he theorizes that man produces himself as a result of his environment. You can see where his argument is going - control the environment and you control the man. Neat.

I'm not sure he's taking it that far... for you will note it's an add on, as an influential factor, for enviroment does not force actions only influence them...

smooth · 12-31-2005, 02:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

I haven't read Marx in I don't know how long, and without context I'll have some fun with this.

"As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production."

As individuals express their life, so they are.

You are what you do.

What they are, therefore, coincides with their production both with what they produce and with how they produce.

You are what you make/work on.

The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production.
and
What you are is dependent on your work enviroment.

Sounds like he is going into the plight of the workers here, or is still going on, as again I have this out of context. Since I do not define myself by my work I find it a false concept, at least for me.

To marx, to "produce" isn't always the same as to "work" as people understand it today. These days, we have a concept that a human's life is basically split in half: "work" & "leisure". Marx didn't see production as a function of "work" but of how humans were fulfilled.

In another thread, you stated, "What you do is pick your government with what works best with human nature. Capitalism does this, and no one will claim its perfect, and its very unfair, but it works well and affords us the most freedom." -- http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpos...1&postcount=49

I think this sentence implies that you see a goodness of fit between your concept of your self your economic context:capitalism. You take the things you feel good about in capitalism and claim it meshes with your human nature--the essential characteristics of what constitutes your self, or a person for that matter. It appears, from that sentence, that you actually are defining yourself according to your place in the economy.

11-14-2005, 11:47 AM	#1 (permalink)
ehh19 Upright	Here's another one for ya... grr... marx I sort of understand what Marx is saying in this small paragraph but the reasons behind it completely stump me. "As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production." Sure, we can say that what people produce and how they do so defines their life... but WHY? why would we say that? I think that the first sentence is throwing me off. what do you guys think? __________________ "A dead Lois?!?" - Stewie "Does this look like a Q to you? ... How 'bout now?" - Quagmire

11-25-2005, 02:21 PM	#6 (permalink)
BigBen Comedian Location: Use the search button	Marx was setting up the argument to refute what Smith and Ricardo had postulated for so long: Labour was just another factor in production. Land, Labour and Capital. Marx had some revolutionary thoughts on Labour, and the value of that labour. It did not coincide with the standard economic thought at the time. He therefore set up his theory very carefully, when talking about the nature of production, and man's place in the economy. __________________ 3.141592654 Hey, if you are impressed with my memorizing pi to 10 digits, you should see the size of my penis.

11-25-2005, 10:08 PM	#7 (permalink)
Suave Twitterpated Location: My own little world (also Canada)	Marx believed quite strongly that material goods and economy are the infrastructure of society, and all of society relies upon and revolves around the production of materials for our survival. Hence, the individual finds a great amount of importance personally in what they do make, how they make it, et cetera. You have to look at what Marx says from a social rather than personal point of view. He was most assuredly a more "macro" theorist, in that he focused on the larger society and its effects on people, rather than vice versa. __________________ "Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinions." - Albert Einstein "Wise men talk because they have something to say; fools, because they have to say something." - Plato

11-26-2005, 03:18 PM	#8 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	I haven't read Marx in I don't know how long, and without context I'll have some fun with this. "As individuals express their life, so they are. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production, both with what they produce and with how they produce. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production." As individuals express their life, so they are. You are what you do. What they are, therefore, coincides with their production both with what they produce and with how they produce. You are what you make/work on. The nature of individuals thus depends on the material conditions determining their production. What you are is dependent on your work enviroment. Sounds like he is going into the plight of the workers here, or is still going on, as again I have this out of context. Since I do not define myself by my work I find it a false concept, at least for me. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-14-2005, 12:02 PM	#2 (permalink)
nezmot Registered User	He's trying to describe the context, the groundwork for whatever he's about to say next. He's making the point that an 'individual' is not some abstract thing, but something that 'does' something. Something that 'produces' something. And if we are going to use this definition of the individual as a producer, then it is important to consider the environment around them that will enable or hinder the individuals ability to produce. Why would we say that? Well we might be about to try and explain a new theory about organising people into a more productive system. And in doing so, he might be getting all the ground rules and assumptions defined and clarified and out the way, before we got into the real meat of the thing. Like Euclid carefully defining what a point is, then a line, and then a right angle etc - before going on to create a full theory of geometry. Marx is defining a person in terms of what they can produce before expounding on his theories (whatever they may be?!) on the various socio-political systems in which these people operate.

11-14-2005, 02:43 PM	#3 (permalink)
Furlicker Upright Location: Phoenix, AZ	I think it was Sartre who said something along the lines of 'for an object, essence precedes existence; for man existence precedes essence'. You can have a blueprint, a plan, (or, for Plato, a 'form') of an object and know what its purpose is before it even exists. Man, on the other hand, comes into the world and then creates/defines/produces himself through his actions. I didn't know Marx had said this. It's an interesting add-on that he theorizes that man produces himself as a result of his environment. You can see where his argument is going - control the environment and you control the man. Neat.

11-14-2005, 02:47 PM	#4 (permalink)
Furlicker Upright Location: Phoenix, AZ	I produce things from wood, so I am a carpenter... I make music so I am a musician... I bake bread so I am a baker... I sit and watch tv all day so I am a couch potato...

11-25-2005, 12:46 PM	#5 (permalink)
harry Tilted	I'd just like to add that Marx was of course a materialst and a statement like this is very near to core of his philosophy. To me it seems quite obvious that we are defined by our daily business and environment, so I don't really see your problem with this line of thinking...