Kant felsefesine karşı yapılan en yaygın eleştirilerden biri onun öznelci olduğudur. Bu eleştiriyle birlikte ayrıca Berkeleycilik suçlaması ve fenomenalist okuma karşımıza çıkmaktadır. Öznelcilik ithamına göre Kant empirik nesneleri sağlam/zihinden bağımsız bir şekilde düşün(e)mez, bu ise bilincimizin içine sıkışıp kaldığımız bir felsefeye yol açar. Berkeleycilik suçlaması ve fenomenalist okumaya göre de Kant felsefesi sadece görünüşleri bilebileceğimizi söyleyerek, bütün gerçekliği “kafanın-içinde-duran” zihinsel içeriklere indirgemiştir. Bu makalede öncelikle Kant’ın Berkeleycilik ithamına karşı kendi argümanlarını inceleyeceğiz; daha sonra fenomenalist okumanın temel varsayımlarını Van Cleve’in Kant (...) yorumunu mercek altına alarak bulacak ve eleştireceğiz. Bizim görüşümüze göre Van Cleve Kant’ı ele alırken ona iki varsayım isnat eder. Birincisine göre, Kant Kartezyen-Lockeçu temsiliyetçiliği savunur; ikincisine göre, Kantçı özne temelcidir. Bizce bu iki varsayımın Kant’a yüklenmesi haksızdır ve dolayısıyla Berkeleyci fenomenalist okuma ikna edici görünmemektedir. Kant’ın görünüş kavramı “kafanın-içinde-duran” zihinsel içerikler anlamına gelmemektedir; özne ise Kant’ın felsefesinde temelci bir pozisyon işgal etmez, dolayısıyla özne nesneyi salt bir zihinsel içerikmiş gibi taşımaz zira hem özne hem nesne Kant’ta fenomenal alana düşerler. (shrink)

Marx’s concept of value has been subject to significant criticism. Robinson argues that the concept is awkward and obscure, as it is meant to explain the prices of commodities and thus must be a kind of price, but it is not. Consequently, Robinson holds that the concept of value makes no sense. Furthermore, according to Harvey, Marx in the Grundrisse confuses value with price. It seems to me that both Robinson’s criticism and Harvey’s exegesis are based on serious misunderstandings. In (...) this article, I first unpack Marx’s criticism of Darimon’s proposal concerning time chits. The upshot is that, for Marx, production relations enjoy a priority, and a monetary reform like Darimon’s cannot fulfill the function of revolutionary change. So, time chits become a triviality. Second, I suggest a reconstruction of what I call Marx’s “nonconvergency thesis.” The thesis states that there is a supervenience between value and price. Marx says that Darimon is ignorant about this thesis, and his proposal relies on the delusion that the two are convergent. Therefore, I maintain that Harvey’s claim is misleading, as he overlooks the nonconvergency thesis articulated in the Grundrisse. And Robinson’s condemnation of the concept of value should be dismissed because her understanding is very much the same as Darimon’s, in that she ignores the two-layered ontological structure between value and price. (shrink)

Saito’s Marx in the Anthropocene presents interesting arguments and views that propose to unite Marxism and degrowth. The importance of the book comes from the fact that it intends to respond to the ecological crisis and the Anthropocene. To this end, Saito utilizes Meszaros’s interpretation of Marx according to which Marx bases his critique of political economy on the theory of metabolism. What follows from this is nature has absolute limits and capitalism produces the ecological crisis in which the metabolism (...) between humans and nature degrades. Saito scrutinizes this crisis through three rifts: the material disruption of cyclical processes in natural metabolism, the spatial rift, and the temporal rift. Moreover, Saito maintains that the theory of metabolism is compatible with Marx’s materialism, in that Marx is neither a flat ontological monist nor a Cartesian dualist but a methodological dualist. I find this line of thinking, however, as doubtful. Lastly, Saito claims that although Marx was before the 1870s Promethean, Europocentric, and productionist he underwent a radical breakthrough and became a degrowth communist. However, Saito’s claims are hardly convincing. (shrink)