Lukács shows how specialization when the scientific study actually reduces the field of view, the whole picture. So the ideal of science operates in previous posts predominant note in college in which the strong specialization and segmentation of knowledge are actually promoted after the Bologna Process, which prevents a systematic collection of everything. This is particularly marked in so-called "social sciences" to include sciences education of the official version usually rule in fact globalizing critical paradigms such as Paulo Freire (appeal to the majority of the resolutions of the Commission of Social Sciences and Law, ANECA that promote and advise candidates methodologies to be aim to be empirical and quantitative research subjects must be "relevant" and usable by the companies and the market). To this, Lukacs respond to this kind of fragmentary knowledge, formal and quantitative prevents the proper knowledge and critical (in your case, dialectical) of reality. Modern science, "(...) the more developed and more scientific evidence is, the more it will become a formally closed system of partial and special laws, for which he is methodical and mostly incomprehensible the world outside their own field, and with it, too, and even in the first place, the matter proposed for knowledge, his own particular substrate reality "(p. 32).
This is exemplified by the political economy question by Marx, that its subject parcel is not just capturing what happens if there is only on the surface of segments of reality (economic) formalized (facts and figures) . Mathematizes is what happens in the economic field, making human behavior and what options should be historical laws similar to the physical world. Abstracts the formal and eliminating subjective and not comparable to economic exchanges (eg considering the value of change and is not considered the value in use as a yardstick to capture certain dynamics of capitalist commodification, says Lukács) . This reflects a fatalistic naturalization of what is historical, and think about the idea of \u200b\u200bhistorical reality Ellacuría, which refers to a dual component constraints, on the one hand, and unpredictable choices of human beings, on the other hand, in shaping the course of history. For Marxism Lukács, however, the problem would lie in forgetting what characterizes the dialectical course of history (historical materialism) as a succession of modes of production that are explained in social and historical terms, not as a reflection of natural course. However, Lukacs is Hegelian Hegelian and seems to capture (and engelianamente?) The dialectical in all the dynamism of the real (dialectical materialism). The key is that the Marxist conception of reality is fluid, also objects, avoiding cosist perspective of modern science itself. The whole of reality is essentially dynamic, with its dynamism and fluidity are dialectical (as opposed the dynamism of the real in the materialist conception also Ellacuría). Crystallization parceled substantialist modern science, such as political economy, involves an impenetrable darkness of reality, an unsurpassed opacity of the object as a crystallization of the dynamism that made it. Thus, awareness and grasp of reality (economic, social, historical) by modern science is the way of a paralysis of the real thing-like an arrest of movement.
cosist In view of the economy is not understood, interestingly, the crisis as constitutive of capitalism, but as cracks or accidents that can be patched. There are few iron laws of course fatal to which men must conform. Maybe this will understand what has been often stressed in regard to current or neo-classical economists, who claim that reality conforms to their mathematical models, and not vice versa. If there is a crisis, you have to do is mathematize and further formalize the real economy, following the movement Mathematizing of modern economics. But according to Lukács, to understand the true origin of the economic crisis is to go to the qualitative which is ignored by classical economics. In this sense, comes to my mind an example that I have heard the renowned economist in Cordoba ETEA founder, Dr. James Loring. I do not remember exactly, but more or less true. Loring account in a conference he attended was trying to explain changes in the euro exchange rate over several years and that every square in the mathematical model created for it by the speaker, the less a figure on a year inexplicably, seemed to contradict the explanatory model. The lecturer, Loring asked about this, replied that it would continue to make adjustments to the mathematical model, what the economist James Loring noted that the year in question that the euro exchange rate was not explained by the model was rejected in a referendum the European Constitution in Denmark, I remember that this was the case, and that (a qualitative element unpredictable) had produced an extraordinary quantitatively inexplicable drop the price of euro. Thus, stop staring and explanations of reality only in their quantitative elements makes the eyes can not capture certain qualitative elements of reality (economic) that are critical to explain.
But in the world of current economic theory even more serious things happen. The idea is that if something in reality does not conform to the mathematical models, then is said to be distorting reality. Perhaps a form of the epistemological aberration is what we are hearing these days in Spain when trying to reform the labor market and pensions to adjust to the calculations of the same economists who were unable to predict the bursting housing bubble and the global crisis we suffer (those who have now signed the so-called "Manifesto of the 100" calling for a more flexible labor market, delaying retirement and reduction in aid to the unemployed and pensions). All this leads to the obvious suspicion of an interest that is both epistemological (knowing the reality), ideological (follow certain interests of social groups). Formalizing this process has the "virtue" also to eliminate the ethics of economics or law, for example, making prevail as the given value, ie the capitalist structuring and founded the law as something in itself that validates any conduct which conforms to it. It is as though the magic wand of law actually created. Needless to say, the ideological element also evident behind this neglect of the ethical (legal positivism) Lukacs also related to something apparently not, as was the Natural Law that was, he said, in an attempt to give prestige to the new law the triumphant bourgeoisie Natural founded on reason (another modern fetish.)
Finally, says Lukacs, "The reified world is presented as (...) as the only possible world final, only covers concepts, understandable given the world only to men. For the essence of this is irrelevant whether it is accepted in a happy, resigned or hopeless, and until they find a way to 'life' through the irrational mystical experience "(p. 39). If we propose a unifying philosophy as knowledge of this reality we will not reified, of course, far out of it. Nor critical philosophy leads to the output of all reified, since as we said in previous post is accurately identified by Lukacs, criticism (not dialectical) reduplicated reflexive as in a mirror, if consciousness is caught in a contemplative mode to know which is claimed by the reified world. This objectification in bourgeois consciousness that responds to a reified world is exhaustively described in its various versions by Lukacs in the following pages of the work we have as a reference for our posts on the rigidity and fragmentation of knowledge as both the university structure later mercantilist the Bologna Process (this is the site dedicated to the antinomies of bourgeois thought performing a questioning nature of the modern Cartesian).
0 comments:
Post a Comment