The following is a continuation of the previous chapter.
Beware of the “solutions” of Marxists
I would write about “ideology,” so I checked the Iwanami Encyclopedia of Philosophy and Thought section and found something surprising.
Makoto Tokunaga wrote it; he was saying a leading scholar of the Frankfurt School.
According to Tokunaga, the word “ideology” was first used by Destutdt de Tracy, a frequent guest in Madame Hervésius’s salon, to mean “idéologie.
It said that it was Marx who changed it to its current meaning. It says that with this word, the “false consciousness” caught up in the old ideas was exposed.
In other words, Marx used what he opposed to his “theory” to attack by saying that it was a false, idéologie.
Of course, Tokunaga is also a fellow Marxist, and he says something like this.
“In the Anglo-American circle, which lacks the German idealistic theoretical tradition, the term ideology did not take root easily” (p. 88).
Britain and France, which were actually superior to Germany in terms of both technology and cultural level of people, would not have accepted this kind of self-serving nonsense at first.
I have taken the trouble to write this because many of the overviews written in Japan in the modern era and the commentaries on translated books were written by Marxists, and today they are full of prejudices.
In Part 16 of this series, I mentioned that Kunitaka Negishi, an abridger of Hervésius’s Essay on Man, wrote in his dissertation that Hervésius was “the essential flaw of French materialism.
However, Yoichiro Yamazaki, who wrote the bibliography of Simone Weil’s “Freedom and Social Suppression” (translated by Mayumi Tomihara, Iwanami Bunko, 2005), is also terrible.
I can’t say anything significant because Koichiro Tomioka told me about Weil, but she’s not a philosopher; she’s a theologian.
It has also attempted to develop a theology from the asceticism of St. Francis.
With her theological intuition, she brilliantly shot through the materialist view of history, which is the keystone of Marxism, in the following part.
“We know that in Marx’s eyes, the development of the productive forces is the real cause of history and that this development has almost no limits. “At the moment when the frame is deterred, productivity revolts, the frame is crushed, and emerging social forces take power.” (p. 27).
“I am struck by the mythical character of socialist literature, which accepts this conception as axiomatic without exception. Marx never once explains why the productive forces increase.” “Similarly, why is it predetermined that when social institutions oppose the development of the productive forces, the productive forces, not the social institutions, will triumph” (p. 19).
My solution is “because it is fake.”
Mr. Yoichiro Yamazaki’s solution to this question, as mentioned earlier, states.
“She was not in a position to criticize this pseudo-religiosity in the name of genuine religious spirituality because she was chronologically still before her religious experience. What she attacked in the religious form of Marx’s thought was its inadequacy as a theory and its lack of theoretical consistency as materialism” (p. 468).
To my dismay, Yamazaki’s criticism of Weil is simply discrimination against women, as what an immature little girl (25 years old at the time) would say to Marx.
This article continues.