Response to Gramsci

The intellectual, like everyone else, is a product of history ('historicity' for the philosophically diseased) and society. Even their rebellion against society is a reaction to society and therefore determined by society (Krishnamurti, Nietzsche). Everything takes place within the context of one's culture, time and material circumstances.

Since people cannot create a purely individual ideology, as they must always work from within the framework of history and society, people are forced to react to society. And the best reaction to society is to try to improve it. To build upon what is already in existence.

Gramsci asks, "Can one find a unitary criterion to characterize equally all the diverse and disparate activities of intellectuals and to distinguish these at the same time and in an essential way from the activities of other social groupings?" and the response is from a neo-Hegelian, "Marxist" 20th century philosopher Alexandre Kojeve. Yes. What distinguishes the intellectual's activity is his or her ability to effectively overcome, through dialectics, a given thesis by presenting its negation, or by creating something meaningful through work (which alters the creator and the world, in response to the thing created). Those who are unable to do this do not fall into the conceptualized category of "intellectual." This does not devalue these people (think of someone with severe Autism, as an example, or an infant), but it does separate them, conceptually, by an unitary criterion.

I have presented the anti-thesis to, "All men are intellectuals," and consequently do not accept the claim.

When Gramsci states, "so that there are varying degrees of specific intellectual activity." it must be acknowledged that these varying degrees can be excessively huge. In certain respects, it is like comparing a human brain to the currently best Artificial Intelligence, which is still unable to really manipulate an environment let alone feel an emotion.

"Each man, finally, outside his professional activity, carries on some form of intellectual activity, that is, he is a “philosopher”, an artist, a man of taste, he participates in a particular conception of the world, has a conscious line of moral conduct, and therefore contributes to sustain a conception of the world or to modify it, that is, to bring into being new modes of thought." (Gramsci).

Whatever new modes of thought are brought into being must be remembered to be only reactions to already current modes of thought.

According to Gramsci, taking his thought to its complete implication, art for arts sake is out. Art for the beauty of aesthetics, industry for aesthetics, and everything else that does not serve a practical or political purpose is off limits. Duchamp is in, Matisse, Cezanne, out. Van Gogh, questionable.

The laborer, craftsman, artesian, mechanic, are intellectuals. No dispute.

Marxist critics uncover hidden ideological agendas within seemingly innocuous texts. The method of deconstruction, finding what is omitted in a text, finding the hidden assumptions of a text, is invaluable--especially for literary criticism.

The critique of capitalism is eye-opening. Also, the re-conceptualization and re-evaluation of culturally and historically conditioned values are excellent modes of thought and criticism. This can be applied in other areas, like Feminist criticism.

The whole political revolution and art only for practicality crap, remains crap.