The Nature of Human Activity

Tuğba Sevinç
{"title":"The Nature of Human Activity","authors":"Tuğba Sevinç","doi":"10.5840/KILIKYA20196213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this work I present some of Arendt’s criticisms of Marx and assess whether these criticisms are fair. I claim that Arendt reads Marx erroneously, which results in her failure to grasp certain similarities between Marx and herself, at least on some points. It is important to mention that Arendt’s interest in Marx is part of a wider project she pursues. She believes that Marx’s theory might allow us to establish a link between Bolshevism and the history of Western thought. Marx’s notion of history and progress enables Arendt to support her claim that Marx’s theory involves totalitarian elements. By way of correcting Arendt’s misreading of Marx, my purpose has been to get a better understanding of the theories of Marx and Arendt, as well as to see their incompatible views regarding the nature of human activity and of freedom. Arendt charges Marx of ignoring the most central human activity, that is ‘action’; and of denying human beings a genuine political existence and freedom. Furthermore, according to Arendt, Marx conceives labor as human being’s highest activity and ignores the significance of other two activities, namely work and action. In the last analysis, Marx and Arendt prioritizes distinct human activities as the most central (labor and action, respectively) to human beings; and as a result, they provide us two irreconcilable views of politics, history and freedom.","PeriodicalId":304114,"journal":{"name":"Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / Cilicia Journal of Philosophy","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kilikya Felsefe Dergisi / Cilicia Journal of Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/KILIKYA20196213","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In this work I present some of Arendt’s criticisms of Marx and assess whether these criticisms are fair. I claim that Arendt reads Marx erroneously, which results in her failure to grasp certain similarities between Marx and herself, at least on some points. It is important to mention that Arendt’s interest in Marx is part of a wider project she pursues. She believes that Marx’s theory might allow us to establish a link between Bolshevism and the history of Western thought. Marx’s notion of history and progress enables Arendt to support her claim that Marx’s theory involves totalitarian elements. By way of correcting Arendt’s misreading of Marx, my purpose has been to get a better understanding of the theories of Marx and Arendt, as well as to see their incompatible views regarding the nature of human activity and of freedom. Arendt charges Marx of ignoring the most central human activity, that is ‘action’; and of denying human beings a genuine political existence and freedom. Furthermore, according to Arendt, Marx conceives labor as human being’s highest activity and ignores the significance of other two activities, namely work and action. In the last analysis, Marx and Arendt prioritizes distinct human activities as the most central (labor and action, respectively) to human beings; and as a result, they provide us two irreconcilable views of politics, history and freedom.
人类活动的本质
在这本书中,我提出了阿伦特对马克思的一些批评,并评估这些批评是否公正。我认为阿伦特对马克思的解读是错误的,这导致她未能把握马克思和她自己之间的某些相似之处,至少在某些方面是如此。值得一提的是,阿伦特对马克思的兴趣是她追求的更广泛计划的一部分。她认为马克思的理论可以让我们在布尔什维主义和西方思想史之间建立联系。马克思的历史和进步概念使阿伦特能够支持她的主张,即马克思的理论包含极权主义因素。通过纠正阿伦特对马克思的误读,我的目的是更好地理解马克思和阿伦特的理论,以及看到他们关于人类活动和自由的本质的不相容的观点。阿伦特指责马克思忽视了最核心的人类活动,即“行动”;否认人类真正的政治存在和自由。此外,根据阿伦特的观点,马克思认为劳动是人的最高活动,而忽略了另外两种活动,即工作和行动的意义。在最后的分析中,马克思和阿伦特将不同的人类活动优先考虑为人类最核心的活动(分别是劳动和行动);结果,他们给我们提供了两种不可调和的观点,关于政治、历史和自由。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信