지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
This essay attempts to place Karl Marx anew in this era in which postmodernism flourishes. Postmodernism has raised fundamental questions in the existing knowledge system. There have been critiques of the objective comprehension of history, evoking new
understanding of the characteristics of oppression and human liberation. Instead of grand narrative based on totality, postmodernism suggests the horizontal and dialogical channels, which include interactions of diverse relations. That is, according to proponents of postmodernism, historical science is not concerned with capitalized 'History' as a meta-narrative, but with small 'histories', which comprise the minor narratives of numerous individuals. In this context, it is no wonder that Marxism has encountered political and epistemological challenges with the advent of postmodernism. This is because Marxist historical science pursues a total history and puts the economical structure and class relations central to history understanding. But this issue is not so simple. My point is that Marx, with Nietzsche who has influenced the postmodernists greatly, raised fundamental questions on Modernity. Marx was the first to try to deconstruct the modernist concepts of reason, consciousness, and subject, in his own ways, going against the Hegelian universalist system of philosophy. In the first part of this essay, I would explore the similarities between Marx and Nietzsche in the light of 'the ontology of relations'. I will employ the theory of L. Althusser for this purpose. The second part is devoted to the explanation of Marx's characteristic points on alienation, human nature, and truth on which he put his faith. My point is that in spite of the similarities, Marx did not take the step, as Nietzsche did, of reducing reason and truth simply to the expression of interests, or one form of the will to power. I use Heidegger's ontology on this point. I explain, in the third part, that Marx had never thrown away the notion of totality, while he denied the universalist philosophy as a grand narrative. Moreover, I argue that we need to recover the alternative grand narrative that helps us understand the meaning of the individual in order not to be overwhelmed by 'narcissism of small differences'. It is still valid and important to analyze the intersections of contradictions under the frame of totality. More importantly, the world that we live in now requires universalistic projects more than ever before, not only from the epistemological level, but from the political dimension, since, whether we want or not, we are under the system of capitalism which is managed by the totalized and grand mechanism. In this sense, there still remains a political and epistemological base and its possibilities that pursue 'a History', which is concerned with a valid context, overcoming the notions of 'History' and 'histories'.
understanding of the characteristics of oppression and human liberation. Instead of grand narrative based on totality, postmodernism suggests the horizontal and dialogical channels, which include interactions of diverse relations. That is, according to proponents of postmodernism, historical science is not concerned with capitalized 'History' as a meta-narrative, but with small 'histories', which comprise the minor narratives of numerous individuals. In this context, it is no wonder that Marxism has encountered political and epistemological challenges with the advent of postmodernism. This is because Marxist historical science pursues a total history and puts the economical structure and class relations central to history understanding. But this issue is not so simple. My point is that Marx, with Nietzsche who has influenced the postmodernists greatly, raised fundamental questions on Modernity. Marx was the first to try to deconstruct the modernist concepts of reason, consciousness, and subject, in his own ways, going against the Hegelian universalist system of philosophy. In the first part of this essay, I would explore the similarities between Marx and Nietzsche in the light of 'the ontology of relations'. I will employ the theory of L. Althusser for this purpose. The second part is devoted to the explanation of Marx's characteristic points on alienation, human nature, and truth on which he put his faith. My point is that in spite of the similarities, Marx did not take the step, as Nietzsche did, of reducing reason and truth simply to the expression of interests, or one form of the will to power. I use Heidegger's ontology on this point. I explain, in the third part, that Marx had never thrown away the notion of totality, while he denied the universalist philosophy as a grand narrative. Moreover, I argue that we need to recover the alternative grand narrative that helps us understand the meaning of the individual in order not to be overwhelmed by 'narcissism of small differences'. It is still valid and important to analyze the intersections of contradictions under the frame of totality. More importantly, the world that we live in now requires universalistic projects more than ever before, not only from the epistemological level, but from the political dimension, since, whether we want or not, we are under the system of capitalism which is managed by the totalized and grand mechanism. In this sense, there still remains a political and epistemological base and its possibilities that pursue 'a History', which is concerned with a valid context, overcoming the notions of 'History' and 'histories'.
목차
【Abstract】
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문
논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!
-
Karl Marx의 이데올로기 理解
철학
1986 .05
-
포스트모더니즘과 교육
한국학(구 정신문화연구)
1991 .06
-
Postmodernism and Mission
선교와 신학
2003 .12
-
Karl Marx의 思想 評價
신학전망
1986 .12
-
사회비판 논리로서의 포스트모더니즘
철학연구
2001 .08
-
포스트모더니즘의 개념과 성격
성곡논총
1990 .08
-
포스트모더니즘 시 연구
비평문학
2010 .03
-
포스트모더니즘의 비판적 이해
한국학연구
1993 .10
-
칼 마르크스의 종교론과 그 비판
신학과세계
1996 .06
-
한국미술과 포스트모더니즘
한국학연구
1993 .10
-
포스트모더니즘과 중국역사학
韓國史學史學報
2001 .01
-
인류학적 포스트모더니즘에 대한 비판적 검토
비교문화연구
1993 .11
-
한국현대시와 포스트모더니즘
한국학연구
1993 .10
-
포스트모더니즘과 설교
신학지남
2006 .12
-
포스트모더니즘과 한국 정치학의 전망
한국학(구 정신문화연구)
1995 .08
-
포스트모더니즘의 사상적 개관
한국학연구
1993 .10
-
포스트모더니즘과 기독교 생명문화
신학지남
2006 .09
-
한국연극에서의 포스트모더니즘
한국학연구
1993 .10
-
맑스의 자연개념
철학
1990 .11
-
돈 드릴로의 『포인트 오메가』를 통한 포스트-포스트모더니즘 읽기 : 포스트-포스트모더니즘 시대에서 자아의 의미
새한영어영문학
2012 .05
이 논문의 저자 정보
이 논문과 함께 이용한 논문
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2009-911-014462772