Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Reviewed Work(s): Lukács and Heidegger: Towards a New Philosophy by Lucien Goldmann
and William Q. Boelhower
Review by: Tom Rockmore
Source: Studies in Soviet Thought, Vol. 23, No. 4 (May, 1982), pp. 342-346
Published by: Springer
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20099090
Accessed: 19-09-2016 22:54 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms
Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studies in Soviet Thought
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Mon, 19 Sep 2016 22:54:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
REVIEWS
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Mon, 19 Sep 2016 22:54:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
REVIEWS 343
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Mon, 19 Sep 2016 22:54:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
344 REVIEWS
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Mon, 19 Sep 2016 22:54:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
REVIEWS 345
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Mon, 19 Sep 2016 22:54:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
346 REVIEWS
certain Marxian ideas helps explain the occurrence of other, later passages in
Heidegger's writings, such as in the Letter on Humanism, where cautious
praise is offered to Marx as one who thought on an historical plane.
This work is helpful in another sense. The 'school' approach has unfortu
nately again become dominant in contemporary ph?osophy. Analysts talk
mainly, if not only, with others of the same stripe, and phenomenologists
reject out of hand different ways of doing ph?osophy. But each of the several
schools is concerned with the same external world, which it seeks to know
through the medium of thought. One of the most powerful ways to measure
the relative success of rival views is through comparing and contrasting their
respective capacities to come to grips with the world as given in experience.
Although Goldmann does not actuaUy accomplish the task, by bringing into
conceptual proximity two such apparently unrelated ph?osophers, each
representative of a major strand of contemporary thought, he at least points
in this direction.
But comparative analysis of two or more positions requires as its prereq
uisite a conceptual precision which, it must be said, this study honors mainly
in the breach. Although it is correct that for different reasons Luk?cs and
Heidegger reject the subject/object dichotomy of modern ph?osophy, the
genesis of this similarity is more probably to be found in Hegel's criticisms
of Kant and Descartes than in the relation of either ph?osopher to Husserlian
phenomenology. Again, it would seem that the Heideggerian concept of
Zuhandenheit is more closely related to various forms of instrumentahsm, for
instance in Dewey's ph?osophy, than it is to the Marxist concept of praxis.
Further, it seems implausible to construe Heidegger's view of Being as the
counterpart to the Luk?csian concept of a dialecticaUy articulated totaUty,
since Heidegger himself continuaUy caUs attention to the Parmenidean con
cept of being as opposed to nothing. Thus although this study is interesting,
informative, and partiaUy plausible, much, indeed the Uon's share, remains to
be done.
Andrew Arato and Paul Breines, The Young Luk?cs and the Origins of
Western Marxism, NY, Seabury Press, 1970, xui + 256 pp.
This content downloaded from 128.59.222.107 on Mon, 19 Sep 2016 22:54:07 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms