|
|
|
 Modern times have obviously proven Marx' assumptions of the self-destructive tendency of capitalism to be much more latent and controllable. The dynamic and destructive capitalist economy which 1) replaced exploitation veiled with religion with blatant exploitation and 2) destroyed its own means of preventing future crises has again become a more veiled form of exploitation and has proven to have a much greater capacity to prevent crises through human constructions such as the federal reserve board and government crisis monetary backing. Things such as these show capitalist society to be more tenacious than Marx thought. How does this effect his claim to scientific status? Marxism is still a very exact and penetrating critique -- but what level of science can it claim?
Part II totally disregards this redeeming quality of the work. While speculative philosophy is largely groundless musings, even as observed by Kierkegaard himself, the method of dialectical observation/argument instills a marginal utility to this philosophical work. In other words, the discussion on despair is not simply random musings of a "philosopher," but an intelligent and grounded investigation into human psychology. On the other hand, part II enters back into the realm of random musings -- here we have Kierkegaard's personal views on sin and Christianity.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Favorites
Del.icio.us
Digg
Furl
Magnolia
StumbleUpon
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
BlinkList