If philosophy is to be simultaneously a totalisation of knowledge, a method, a regulative Idea, an offensive weapon, and a community of language, if this “vision of the world” is also an instrument which ferments rotten societies, if this particular conception of a man or of a group of men becomes the culture and sometimes the nature of a whole class-then it is very clear that the periods of philosophical creation are rare. Between the seventeenth century and the twentieth, I see three such periods, which I would designate by the names of the men who dominated them: there is the “moment” of Descartes and Locke, that of Kant and Hegel, finally that of Marx. These three philosophies become, each in its turn, the humus of every particular thought and the horizon of all culture; there is no going beyond them so long as man has not gone beyond the historical moment which they express. I have often remarked on the fact that an “anti-Marxist” argument is only the apparent rejuvenation of a pre-Marxist idea. A so-called “going beyond” Marxism will be at worst only a return to pre-Marxism; at best, only the rediscovery of a thought already contained in the philosophy which one believes he has gone beyond.

It feels to me like a lot of western intellectualism, by its rejection of socialism, is forced into a position where it is incapable of making progress and, having hit a wall of its own construction, can do nothing but sink to the floor.

[–] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 3 points 1 month ago

Good point; it seems pretty self-evident in econ and political science, where the reigning orthodoxies disallow departing from the assumptions of liberalism, but given that literature also takes place within culture, it end ends up subject to the same constraints, blindly or deliberately imposed by publishers, critics, and readers.