Fichte, Marx, and the German philosophical tradition

Front Cover
Southern Illinois University Press, 1980 - Philosophy - 210 pages
A systematic and historical study of the relashy;tion of the positions of Fichte and Marx within the context of nineteenth-century German philosophy as well as the wider hisshy;tory of philosophy. nbsp; Rockmore’s thesis is that there is a little noticed, less often studied, but nevertheless profound structural parallel between the two positions that can be shown to be mediated through the development of the nineteenth-century German philosophical tradition. Both positions understand man in anti-Carshy;tesian fashion, not as a spectator, but as an active being. Rockmore demonstrates that there is similarity of the two views of activity in terms of the Aristotelian concept(energeia),then indicates the further parallel beshy;tween the respective concepts of man that folshy;low from Fichte’s and Marx’s views of activity. nbsp; Turning to the history of philosophy, Rockmore directs the reader to solid textual evidence supporting the influence of Fichte, not only on Marx’s Young Hegelian contemshy;poraries but on Marx as well. He argues that the Hegelian impact on the interpretation of the nineteenth-century philosophical tradishy;tion has served to obscure the parallel beshy;tween the positions of Fichte and Marx, but that the concept of man as an active being can be used to reinterpret this segment of the history of philosophy and to modify the freshy;quently held view of the classical German tradition as a collection of rather disparate thinkers. Finally, he provides a discussion of the intrinsic value of the anti-Cartesian apshy;proach to man as such.

From inside the book

What people are saying - Write a review

We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.



5 other sections not shown

Other editions - View all

Common terms and phrases

About the author (1980)

Tom Rockmore is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Yale University and has two ad­ditional books in press on aspects of Marxism.

Bibliographic information