Vincent Casil

The question of “how one should philosophize?” is driven not only out of the desire to have a glimpse of the ideas worthy to be regarded as true, but also to address the pressing problems of the time. Marx’s humanism, as articulated mainly in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, suggests a certain thinking that addresses the latter. It is the humanism that discovers the concrete estrangement of workers from the abstraction of the political economy at the backdrop of human emancipation. Heidegger, however, in the Letter on Humanism, poses critical challenge against the humanism Marx suggested. He questions Marx’s humanism (and the humanism in totality) to provide the human being direction to attain its essential humanity, and not just relegate man into inhumanity of animalitas. The paper critically examines the ideas given by Heidegger. Although Heidegger could be correct in his examination of the previous humanism, which includes Marx, how he understands the essence of man as “ek-sistence” is but a form of abstraction, an abstraction which is based in his inhuman concept of thinking. The paper does not entirely denounce Heidegger’s thinking, but appeals to recognize the dangers containing in its ambiguity and abstractness. Marx’s humanism, on the other hand, though has forgotten being, is more concrete. With this, the paper calls to repose the tasks and the questions of humanism, and directs thinking out from the dangers of abstraction to concrete understanding of human beings, their problems and solutions.

The paper argues that Feenberg‘s critique of Heidegger is rather erroneous. Against his accusation that Heidegger is determinist, the Dasein rather exemplifies a radical freedom from technology‘s enframing. Dasein holds a freedom as it has the capacity to be free, not only from the technological devices and attitudes, but also from the ontology of enframing, which is founded to what Heidegger historically described as forgetfulness of Being, where Being is treated only as entities or beings. Feenberg rather misreads Heidegger‘s essence of technology as only at the ontic level but not as an ontological problem. Such misreading is based on Feenberg‘s neglect to elaborate Dasein‘s role in the ontological constitution, or in the concealment and unconcealment of Being. With such neglect of Dasein, the technology is perceived as entities totally outside of human control. The Gelassenheit becomes a surrendering to the danger of technology, and not as Dasein‘s act of opening to the clearing for the unconcealment of Being.

The issue on whether the epistemological view of Engels and the Marxists can be identified to Marx opens the question on what Marx’s actual view on knowledge. This debate on Marx’s epistemology is divided between realist and idealist interpretation of his texts: the former reads that for Marx knowledge is a copy of an independent reality existing outside of man, while the latter views that for the same philosopher, knowledge is in some sense constructed by the subject. This study contributes to the discussion by closely reading the epistemology of the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. The Manuscripts contain important epistemological remarks that are subject of scholarly debate. The scope of the study aims to read the texts on their own terms, and through that, avoid the reductive readings of Marx that plague his interpretations. Through this approach, this study argues that Marx in the Manuscripts conveys an idealist epistemology based on his concept on how human need shapes human cognition. Marx further develops this idealism in the texts in his critique of political economy, where he shows that this science is grounded on the estranged need. In the end, this study underscores that the Manuscripts’ idealism shows a part in Marx’s thinking that underlines the role cognition plays to address forms of estrangements brought by the structures of private property. It highlights how Marx empowers man as capable of resolving the estrangements in the society through the development of both action and cognition.

As Filipinos are in search for solutions to their nation's problems of corruption, poverty, inequality, and different forms of injustice, Kusaka's Moral Politics in the Philippines: Inequality, Democracy and the Urban Poor takes a step back from seeking remedies to these problems and reexamines how these issues are commonly articulated. The book investigates moral politics, a discursive framework, to come to terms with how citizens form their understanding of social problems through their notions of good and evil. Under moral politics' frame, citizens view their nation's maladies as caused by morally wrong actions done by an individual (e.g. public leader) or a group of people (e.g. street vendors). By grasping how moral politics works, Kusaka's text shows how it prevents Filipinos from attaining significant social improvements. There are many notable themes in Kusaka's work, but this review highlights only two points: first, Kusaka's examination of how neoliberalism takes effect in the country, especially in view of the shaping of the subjects, and second, his examination of how moral politics contributes or deters the development of democracy in the Philippines by identifying how moral politics prevents Filipinos from grasping the real issues. By emphasizing both insights, Kusaka not only shows how moral politics is formed but also extends the argument by showing that this kind of politics has a profound effect on the community.

Focusing on the conceptual terms of the idealist-realist debate, the paper shows that the inability of the realists to recognize Marx’s idealist heritage is out of the realists’ limited understanding of the category of idealism in their reading. To prove the paper’s case, the first section starts with elucidation of Marx’s concept of epistemological idealism as read by his interpreters. It shows the actual meaning of epistemological idealism as used by Kolakowski, Lukacs, and other idealist readers of Marx. The second section shows how the realists conflate the two idealisms, how the realist reading is erroneously grounded on failure to clarify the difference between the concept of ontological and epistemological idealism. The third section highlights the differences between epistemological and ontological idealism. It explains that Ontological idealism claims that idea is the fundamental reality, while epistemological idealism suggests that knowledge is dependent upon the subject.