An Old Materialism for a New Ground in advance

IF 0.3 4区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY Philosophy Today Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.5840/philtoday2023105507
Ziyana Lategan
{"title":"An Old Materialism for a New Ground in advance","authors":"Ziyana Lategan","doi":"10.5840/philtoday2023105507","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article is an investigation into the concept of “ground” in modern Western philosophy. I begin with a rehearsal of Fanon’s critique of Hegel’s Lord-Bondsman dialectic (that there is no common ground for white and black) as the starting point for this investigation. Despite its best efforts, the Western canon is shown to have a commitment to its transcendental turn and cannot rid itself of its idealist impulse insofar as it must establish a ground from which to begin. In so doing, Western theory cannot reckon with those historical processes that institute modern thought (i.e., primitive accumulation, slavery, colonialism, etc.), precisely because of its reliance on them. As such, it fails to privilege a historical materialist turn that would situate both the self-determined subject and the affectable “others” on a common ground, as insisted on by Denise Ferreira da Silva. By arguing for a materialist conception of an ontoepistemological ground based on necessity rather than freedom, I make a case for a politics of non-participation and revolutionary action as modes of political practice that make possible a dialectical and historical intervention into the structure of the global modern.","PeriodicalId":20142,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy Today","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Philosophy Today","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/philtoday2023105507","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article is an investigation into the concept of “ground” in modern Western philosophy. I begin with a rehearsal of Fanon’s critique of Hegel’s Lord-Bondsman dialectic (that there is no common ground for white and black) as the starting point for this investigation. Despite its best efforts, the Western canon is shown to have a commitment to its transcendental turn and cannot rid itself of its idealist impulse insofar as it must establish a ground from which to begin. In so doing, Western theory cannot reckon with those historical processes that institute modern thought (i.e., primitive accumulation, slavery, colonialism, etc.), precisely because of its reliance on them. As such, it fails to privilege a historical materialist turn that would situate both the self-determined subject and the affectable “others” on a common ground, as insisted on by Denise Ferreira da Silva. By arguing for a materialist conception of an ontoepistemological ground based on necessity rather than freedom, I make a case for a politics of non-participation and revolutionary action as modes of political practice that make possible a dialectical and historical intervention into the structure of the global modern.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
超前的旧唯物主义为新天地而奋斗
本文是对现代西方哲学中“地”概念的考察。我首先预演了法农对黑格尔的领主-邦兹曼辩证法(即白人和黑人没有共同基础)的批判,以此作为本研究的起点。尽管尽了最大的努力,但西方正典却显示出对其先验转向的承诺,并且无法摆脱其唯心主义的冲动,因为它必须建立一个开始的基础。在这样做的过程中,西方理论无法考虑到那些形成现代思想的历史过程(即原始积累、奴隶制、殖民主义等),正是因为它对这些历史过程的依赖。因此,它未能像丹尼斯·费雷拉·达席尔瓦(Denise Ferreira da Silva)所坚持的那样,将自我决定的主体和受人喜爱的“他者”置于共同基础上的历史唯物主义转向给予特权。通过论证基于必然性而非自由的本体论基础的唯物主义概念,我提出了一个不参与政治和革命行动作为政治实践模式的案例,这使得对全球现代结构的辩证和历史干预成为可能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Philosophy Today
Philosophy Today PHILOSOPHY-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
46
期刊最新文献
Internal Colonialism and Democracy in advance “Just the Same Fascism for Us” in advance Violence, Democracy, and Selective Recognition in advance What Is “Totalitarian” Today? in advance The Anti-Vaxxer as a Moral Equal in advance
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1