{"id":4788,"date":"2010-11-24T11:47:42","date_gmt":"2010-11-24T08:47:42","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/localhost\/wordpress\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/"},"modified":"2010-11-24T11:47:42","modified_gmt":"2010-11-24T08:47:42","slug":"marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/","title":{"rendered":"Marx’a G\u00f6re Hegel’de Diyalektik (2) | Bhikhu Parekh"},"content":{"rendered":"

IV
Marx, Hegel’in ele\u015ftirel-olmayan idealizminin diyalektik y\u00f6ntemini son derece zay\u0131flatt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrer. Marx’\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne g\u00f6re Sol Hegelciler diyalekti\u011fin var olan\u0131n rasyonelli\u011fini kabul ederken ayn\u0131 zamanda onun s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar\u0131n\u0131 ve eninde sonunda yerinin al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 tan\u0131mas\u0131 anlam\u0131nda ilke olarak devrimci bir y\u00f6ntem oldu\u011funu vurgulamakta hakl\u0131yd\u0131lar. Ancak, diyalekti\u011fin Hegel’in elinde ele\u015ftirel-olmayan ve pozitivist bir y\u00f6ntem haline geldi\u011fini g\u00f6remeyerek yan\u0131l\u0131yorlard\u0131. Marx, devam ederek, Hegel’in ele\u015ftirel olmayan idealizminin hem onun diyalekti\u011fin do\u011fas\u0131 ve kapsam\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne ve hem de kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131k, dolay\u0131mlama ve olumsuzlaman\u0131n olumsuzlanmas\u0131 gibi can al\u0131c\u0131 yap\u0131sal kavramlar\u0131na nas\u0131l n\u00fcfuz etti\u011fini g\u00f6sterir.<\/p>\n

Marx g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcr sertli\u011fine ra\u011fmen Hegel’in diyalekti\u011finin \u00f6z\u00fcnde \u00fcrkek oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrer. Hegel \u00e7at\u0131\u015fman\u0131n yarat\u0131c\u0131 rol\u00fcn\u00fc vurgulamakla ve ona ontolojik bir stat\u00fc de vermekle birlikte onu temelde tutucu ve dinginci olarak de\u011ferlendirir. Hegel \u00e7at\u0131\u015fmaya s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 bir rol atfeder ve onu her zaman \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fclebilecek \u015fekilde tan\u0131mlar. Hegel’in toplumu ‘kavgaya susam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r fakat ger\u00e7ek bir kavgada yer alamayacak kadar \u00e7\u00fcr\u00fcklerden korkar’.[29] Marx’\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne g\u00f6re, idealizmi, Hegel’in \u00e7at\u0131\u015fman\u0131n tam diyalekti\u011fini geli\u015ftirmesine izin vermez. Bir idealist olarak Hegel b\u00fct\u00fcn varl\u0131klar\u0131 Mutlak Ide’ye indirger. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla \u00e7at\u0131\u015fman\u0131n iki d\u00fc\u015fman varl\u0131k aras\u0131nda olmay\u0131p Ide’nin iki u\u011fra\u011f\u0131 aras\u0131nda olmas\u0131, Tinin asla ger\u00e7ek bir d\u00fc\u015fman varl\u0131kla kar\u015f\u0131la\u015fmadan kendisinin \u00fcretti\u011fi kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131klardan kolayca ge\u00e7mesiyle sonu\u00e7lan\u0131r. Marx’\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne g\u00f6re bu, Hegel’in, Marx i\u00e7in tarihteki diyalekti\u011fin temeli olan insan ile do\u011fa aras\u0131ndaki \u00e7at\u0131\u015fmay\u0131 \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlemesinde a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a g\u00f6r\u00fcl\u00fcr. Hegel do\u011fay\u0131 bilince indirgedi\u011finden, \u00e7at\u0131\u015fma yaln\u0131zca bilin\u00e7te ger\u00e7ekle\u015fir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla o son derece uysal bir g\u00f6r\u00fcng\u00fcd\u00fcr ve ger\u00e7ek bir antagonizmadan yoksundur. Marx’a g\u00f6re Hegel’in hemen hemen b\u00fct\u00fcn \u00e7eli\u015fkileri i\u00e7in de durum budur. \u00c7at\u0131\u015fan varl\u0131klardan biri di\u011ferine indirgenir ve ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131zl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ve kimli\u011fi elinden al\u0131n\u0131r. B\u00f6ylece o lay\u0131k oldu\u011fu yere gelemez ve ger\u00e7ek bir kavgaya tutu\u015famaz. Hegel’in diyalekti\u011fi idealizmi taraf\u0131ndan had\u0131m edilmi\u015ftir ve devrimci bir potansiyelden yoksundur. B\u00f6ylece Marx’\u0131n aray\u0131\u015f\u0131 onun ‘rasyonel \u00e7ekirde\u011fi’dir ve kabul\u00fc bir b\u00fct\u00fcn olarak Hegel’in diyalektik y\u00f6ntemi de\u011fil fakat yaln\u0131zca onun ‘rasyonel’ \u00f6z\u00fcd\u00fcr.<\/p>\n

Marx Hegel’in diyalekti\u011finin gelecek\u00e7i perspektiften yoksunlu\u011fundan da rahats\u0131zd\u0131r. Hegel i\u00e7in felsefe esasen var oldu\u011fu ve geli\u015fti\u011fi bi\u00e7imiyle d\u00fcnyan\u0131n zorunlulu\u011funu g\u00f6stermekle ve d\u00fcnyay\u0131 insan zihnine kabul ettirmekle u\u011fra\u015f\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla felsefe, bug\u00fcn bilginin mutlak ufkunu olu\u015fturmak \u00fczere, t\u00fcm\u00fcyle ge\u00e7mi\u015f ve bug\u00fcnle ilgilidir. Hegel, ku\u015fkusuz, Amerika’n\u0131n d\u00fcnya tininin gelecekteki merkezi olabilece\u011fini s\u00f6yledi\u011finde oldu\u011fu gibi, d\u00fcnyan\u0131n geli\u015fiminin gelecekteki y\u00f6n\u00fc hakk\u0131nda \u00e7e\u015fitli yorumlarda bulunmu\u015ftur. Ancak bunlar ar\u0131ziydi ve onun genel perspektifiyle t\u00fcm\u00fcyle b\u00fct\u00fcnle\u015fmemi\u015fti. B\u00f6ylece, Hegel’in diyalektik y\u00f6ntemi gelece\u011fi \u00f6ng\u00f6rmekle donanmam\u0131\u015f yaln\u0131zca a\u00e7\u0131klay\u0131c\u0131 bir ara\u00e7 olarak kalm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
Marx felsefenin do\u011fas\u0131n\u0131 ve rol\u00fcn\u00fc \u00e7ok farkl\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmi\u015ftir. O felsefeyi entellekt\u00fcel mast\u00fcrbasyonun bir bi\u00e7imi olarak reddetmeden \u00f6nce bile, d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce ve eylemin birli\u011finde \u0131srar etmi\u015f, ve akl\u0131n tam \u00f6rne\u011fi olan felsefenin irrasyonel d\u00fcnya ile kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131nda kendi i\u00e7 mant\u0131\u011f\u0131yla onu hem yorumlamaya hem de de\u011fi\u015ftirmeye zorland\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Ku\u015fkusuz, d\u00fcnya, \u00fctopyac\u0131 yazarlar\u0131n tarz\u0131nda soyut olarak ve tarihsel-olmayan bi\u00e7imde tasarlanmayan, fakat organik olarak bug\u00fcnden kaynaklanan bir gelecek kavray\u0131\u015f\u0131 olmadan de\u011fi\u015ftirilemez. Marx i\u00e7in diyalektik y\u00f6nelimli bir toplum \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 bize hem bug\u00fcn\u00fc anlama ve hem de bug\u00fcnde \u00f6rt\u00fck olarak bulunan e\u011filimleri a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kararak gelece\u011fi \u00f6ng\u00f6rme olana\u011f\u0131n\u0131 vermelidir. Marx’\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne g\u00f6re gelecek\u00e7i perspektif diyalektik y\u00f6nteme i\u00e7kindir ve Hegel onu ihmal etmekle yan\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bir diyalektik\u00e7i i\u00e7in bug\u00fcn do\u011fal olarak karars\u0131zd\u0131r. O kendisi olmaktan \u00e7\u0131kma s\u00fcrecindedir ve oldu\u011fu hem g\u00f6r\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcd\u00fcr hem de de\u011fildir. Olu\u015f varl\u0131\u011fa ar\u0131zi de\u011fildir fakat onun zorunlu boyutudur. Hatta bug\u00fcn, ge\u00e7mi\u015fi i\u00e7erdi\u011fi gibi gelece\u011fi de i\u00e7erir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla hi\u00e7bir toplum veya tarihsel d\u00f6nem hem ne oldu\u011fu hem de muhtemelen ne olaca\u011f\u0131 de\u011ferlendirilmeden anla\u015f\u0131lamaz. Sartre, Marx’\u0131n y\u00f6ntemini ge\u00e7mi\u015fte geriye do\u011fru ve gelecekte ileriye do\u011fru bir dizi entellekt\u00fcel sal\u0131n\u0131m ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirerek bug\u00fcn\u00fc ayd\u0131nlatmaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015fan bir ‘ilerlemeci-gerilemeci y\u00f6ntem’ olarak betimlemekte hakl\u0131d\u0131r.
Diyalekti\u011fe yeni bir d\u00fcnyevi boyutun eklenmesi Hegel’den farkl\u0131 olarak Marx’\u0131n gelece\u011fin yeni beklentiler ve olanaklar i\u00e7erdi\u011fini g\u00f6rebilmesi anlam\u0131na geliyordu. Hegel i\u00e7in tarih Reformasyon’la fiilen sona ererken, izleyen d\u00f6nemler b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde Reformasyon’un temel ilkesinin ya\u015fam\u0131n farkl\u0131 alanlar\u0131nda ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirilmesiyle ilgiliyken, Marx i\u00e7in tarih, Reformasyon’un anas\u0131 olan kapitalizmin y\u0131k\u0131lmas\u0131ndan sonraya kadar ba\u015flamaz bile. Yine Marx kom\u00fcnizmin ‘mutlak olu\u015fu’ simgeledi\u011fini ve beklenmedik olanaklar i\u00e7erdi\u011fini d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr. Ve tek t\u00fck kibirli s\u00f6zlerine ra\u011fmen, kendi d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesinin insan\u0131n entellekt\u00fcel tarihindeki son s\u00f6z\u00fc belirtti\u011fini d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmemi\u015f, ve s\u0131k s\u0131k gelecek d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcrler taraf\u0131ndan \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fclece\u011fini umdu\u011fu problemleri \u00f6zetlemi\u015ftir. Hegel’in Fenomenoloji’si Mutlak Bilgi \u00fczerine bir b\u00f6l\u00fcmle kapan\u0131rken Marx mutlak do\u011fruluk kavram\u0131n\u0131n tutarl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ku\u015fkulan\u0131r.
Marx’\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne g\u00f6re Hegel’in ele\u015ftirel-olmayan idealizmi hem Hegel’in diyalekti\u011fin do\u011fas\u0131n\u0131 ve kapsam\u0131n\u0131 genel kavray\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 ve hem de diyalekti\u011fin temel kategorilerini bi\u00e7imlendirmi\u015ftir. Marx’\u0131n onlardan \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcn\u00fc yani kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131, dolay\u0131mlamay\u0131 ve olumsuzlaman\u0131n olumsuzlanmas\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlemesini inceleyece\u011fiz.
Hegel’in Hukuk Felsefesinin Ele\u015ftirisi’nde birka\u00e7 iyice s\u0131k\u0131\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f, karma\u015f\u0131k ve \u015fa\u015f\u0131rt\u0131c\u0131 paragrafta Marx \u015feylerin \u00fc\u00e7 farkl\u0131 \u015fekilden biriyle kar\u015f\u0131t olabileceklerini s\u00f6yler.[30] Birincisi, kar\u015f\u0131tlar ortak bir \u00f6z\u00fc payla\u015f\u0131r; \u00f6rne\u011fin Kuzey ve G\u00fcney Kutuplar\u0131, erkek ve di\u015fi. Hem Kuzey hem de G\u00fcney Kutbu kutuptur; ‘onlar\u0131n \u00f6z\u00fc ayn\u0131d\u0131r’. Ayn\u0131 \u015fekilde hem di\u015fi hem de erkek cinsi ‘bir t\u00fcr, bir \u00f6z yani insan \u00f6z\u00fcd\u00fcr’. Her bir durumda ilgili iki varl\u0131k ‘bir \u00f6z\u00fcn kar\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131ya duran y\u00f6nleridir, bir \u00f6z\u00fcn geli\u015fmesinin zirvesinde farkl\u0131la\u015fmas\u0131d\u0131r’. Onlar ortak bir \u00f6z\u00fcn ‘farkl\u0131 nitelikleridir’.
Ikincisi, kar\u015f\u0131tlar birbirini kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 d\u0131\u015flayan \u00f6zlere sahiptirler; \u00f6rne\u011fin kutup ve kutup-olmayan ya da insan cinsi ve insan-olmayan cins. Farkl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n ‘varolu\u015f’ farkl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 oldu\u011fu ilk kar\u015f\u0131t \u00e7iftinden farkl\u0131 olarak burada farkl\u0131l\u0131k ‘\u00f6z\u00fcn’ farkl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r. Marx bunlar\u0131 ‘ger\u00e7ek’, ‘fiili’ ya da ‘do\u011fru’ a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 u\u00e7lar ya da antitezler olarak adland\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Marx’\u0131n temel kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131k kavram\u0131 olduk\u00e7a \u015fa\u015f\u0131rt\u0131c\u0131d\u0131r. Bazen, Marx, kutup ve kutup-olmayan gibi ortak hi\u00e7bir \u015feyi payla\u015fmayan varl\u0131klar\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr. Onlar ortak hi\u00e7bir \u015feyi payla\u015fmad\u0131klar\u0131ndan kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 ilgisizdirler. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla onlar\u0131n nas\u0131l \u00e7at\u0131\u015fabilece\u011fini anlamak zordur. Di\u011fer zamanlarda, Marx, kar\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131ya duran ya da kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 d\u0131\u015flayan \u00f6zlere sahip varl\u0131klar\u0131 d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr. Burada her varl\u0131k ancak di\u011ferini yok ederek var olabilece\u011fi ve geli\u015febilece\u011fi \u015fekilde olu\u015fturulmu\u015ftur. Sivil toplum ve devlet aras\u0131ndaki ve g\u00f6rece\u011fimiz gibi burjuvazi ve proletarya aras\u0131ndaki kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131k bu t\u00fcrdendir.
\u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fcs\u00fc, kar\u015f\u0131tlar ortak bir varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n ayr\u0131lamaz y\u00f6nleridir fakat her biri ortak varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n bir y\u00f6n\u00fcn\u00fc soyutlad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ve bunu tarafl\u0131 ve tek yanl\u0131 bir bi\u00e7imde sundu\u011fundan kar\u015f\u0131tlar olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcrler; \u00f6rne\u011fin idealizm ve materyalizm, bireysel ve genel \u00e7\u0131kar ya da bencillik ve \u00f6zgecilik aras\u0131ndaki kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131k. Bunlar ger\u00e7ek varl\u0131klar olmay\u0131p ‘t\u00f6zle\u015ftirilmi\u015f soyutlamalard\u0131r’ ve onlar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ger\u00e7ek olmay\u0131p bir yanl\u0131\u015f kavray\u0131\u015f\u0131n sonucudur.
\u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc t\u00fcr kar\u015f\u0131tlar, birincilerden ortak bir \u00f6z\u00fcn ger\u00e7ek farkl\u0131la\u015fmalar\u0131 olmay\u0131p tek yanl\u0131 yorumlar\u0131 olmakla, ve ikincilerden birbirlerini kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 d\u0131\u015flayan \u00f6zlere sahip olmamakla ayr\u0131l\u0131rlar. \u00d6rne\u011fin idealizm ve materyalizm aras\u0131ndaki kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131 al\u0131n. Marx, insan\u0131n gereksinmelerine g\u00f6re do\u011fay\u0131 artan \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fcde bi\u00e7imlendirmesiyle, do\u011fan\u0131n d\u00fcnyas\u0131na insan bilinci taraf\u0131ndan n\u00fcfuz edildi\u011fini d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr. Do\u011fan\u0131n d\u00fcnyas\u0131 yaln\u0131zca maddi olmaktan \u00e7\u0131kar ve madde ve tinin bir birli\u011fi olur. Idealizm bilincin rol\u00fcn\u00fc vurgular ve onu tek ger\u00e7eklik olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcr; materyalizm ayr\u0131cal\u0131kl\u0131 vurgu i\u00e7in maddi y\u00f6n\u00fc se\u00e7er; ve ikisi kendilerini uzla\u015fmaz kar\u015f\u0131tlar olarak koyarlar. Her biri di\u011ferini \u00fcretir ve vurgular. Materyalizm ger\u00e7ekli\u011fin maddi y\u00f6n\u00fcne vurgu yapt\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan kar\u015f\u0131t\u0131n\u0131 yani idealizmi tahrik eder. O bir kez idealizmi tahrik edince, idealizmin yaln\u0131zca varolu\u015fu materyalizme gerek\u00e7esini verir ve materyalizmin varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00fcrd\u00fcr\u00fcr. Ancak onlar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ger\u00e7ek de\u011fildir ve yaln\u0131zca her birinin ger\u00e7ekli\u011fin do\u011fas\u0131n\u0131 yanl\u0131\u015f anlamas\u0131ndan ve ger\u00e7ekli\u011fin bir y\u00f6n\u00fcn\u00fc b\u00fct\u00fcnle \u00f6zde\u015fle\u015ftirmesinden kaynaklan\u0131r.
Marx \u00fc\u00e7 kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131k t\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fcn farkl\u0131 \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm bi\u00e7imleri gerektirdi\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrer. Ilk kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131k t\u00fcr\u00fcnde ilgili varl\u0131klar ortak bir \u00f6z\u00fcn farkl\u0131la\u015fmalar\u0131d\u0131r. Onlar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131 payla\u015f\u0131lan bir \u00e7er\u00e7evede ortaya \u00e7\u0131kar ve dolay\u0131s\u0131yla zorunlu olarak \u0131l\u0131ml\u0131d\u0131r. Dahas\u0131 onlar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131 her birinin i\u00e7 gizilg\u00fc\u00e7lerini a\u00e7\u0131\u011fa \u00e7\u0131kar\u0131r ve b\u00f6ylece ikisinin de yarar\u0131nad\u0131r. Son olarak, ortak bir \u00f6z\u00fc payla\u015ft\u0131klar\u0131ndan aralar\u0131nda dolay\u0131mlama olanakl\u0131d\u0131r; ve kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 ba\u011f\u0131ml\u0131 ve birbirlerine ‘gerekli’ olduklar\u0131ndan dolay\u0131mlama ayn\u0131 zamanda zorunludur.
Ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak, ikinci kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131k t\u00fcr\u00fc asla uzla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lamaz. Ilgili varl\u0131klar birbirini kar\u015f\u0131l\u0131kl\u0131 d\u0131\u015flar; ‘biri di\u011ferini s\u0131n\u0131rlar fakat ortak bir konumda bulunmazlar’. Ilgili varl\u0131klar ortak bir zemini payla\u015fmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan ve her ikisinin do\u011fas\u0131n\u0131 payla\u015fan hi\u00e7bir dolay\u0131mlayan varl\u0131k da bulunamad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan burada dolay\u0131mlama olanakl\u0131 de\u011fildir. Ancak, dolay\u0131mlanan varl\u0131klar birbirini tamamlamad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, b\u00fct\u00fcnlemedi\u011finden ve birbirine gerekli olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan dolay\u0131mlama zorunlu da de\u011fildir. Marx’\u0131n belirtti\u011fi gibi:[31]
Ger\u00e7ek a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 u\u00e7lar, ger\u00e7ek a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 u\u00e7 olduklar\u0131ndan kesinlikle dolay\u0131mlanamazlar. Ne de, \u00f6zde kar\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131ya durduklar\u0131ndan, dolay\u0131mlanmay\u0131 gerektirirler. Hi\u00e7bir \u015feyi payla\u015fmazlar, birbirlerini gereksinmezler; birbirlerine bir \u015fey eklemezler. Biri kendi ba\u011fr\u0131nda di\u011ferinin arzusunu, gere\u011fini, beklentisini ta\u015f\u0131maz.
Ger\u00e7ek a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 u\u00e7lar \u00e7at\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131 yaln\u0131zca birinin nihayetinde zafer kazand\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir kavga ile \u00e7\u00f6zebilirler. Onlar\u0131n \u00e7at\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 onlar\u0131n ‘kendi kendilerinin bilgileri’, ger\u00e7ek do\u011falar\u0131n\u0131 a\u00e7\u0131k alg\u0131lamalar\u0131 i\u00e7in ve ilerleme u\u011fruna zorunludur. \u00c7at\u0131\u015fmalar\u0131n\u0131 olgunla\u015fmadan sonland\u0131rmak yerine, en iyisi ‘a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 u\u00e7lar olu\u015fturmaya’ b\u0131rak\u0131lmal\u0131d\u0131rlar.
\u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc t\u00fcr kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131k \u00e7ok farkl\u0131 bir \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm bi\u00e7imi gerektirir. Di\u011fer ikisinden farkl\u0131 olarak o ger\u00e7ek bir kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131k de\u011fildir, ve sonu\u00e7 olarak ilgili a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 u\u00e7lar g\u00f6r\u00fcnd\u00fckleri gibi al\u0131namazlar. Y\u00fczeyin alt\u0131na sondaj yapmal\u0131, a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 u\u00e7lar\u0131n tek yanl\u0131 soyutlamalar oldu\u011funu g\u00f6stermeli ve altta yatan ger\u00e7ekli\u011fin ger\u00e7ek do\u011fas\u0131n\u0131 yeniden belirtmeliyiz. B\u00f6yle yaparak ilgili varl\u0131klar\u0131 uzla\u015ft\u0131rm\u0131yoruz fakat yok ediyoruz ya da ortadan kald\u0131r\u0131yoruz. Idealizm ve materyalizm aras\u0131ndaki kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131n \u00fcstesinden, aralar\u0131nda hakemlik yaparak de\u011fil, kendi meziyetlerini ve zay\u0131fl\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 belirleyerek de\u011fil, fakat ger\u00e7ekli\u011fin madde ve tinin diyalektik birli\u011fi oldu\u011funu g\u00f6stererek gelinir. Benzer \u015fekilde, bireyin zorunlu olarak toplumsal bir varl\u0131k oldu\u011fu ve toplumun bireyler aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkiler a\u011f\u0131ndan daha fazla bir \u015fey olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131 anla\u015f\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, birey ve toplum aras\u0131ndaki ve bireycilik ve ortakla\u015fac\u0131l\u0131k aras\u0131ndaki kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131k yok olur.
Marx, Hegel’in \u00fc\u00e7 kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131k t\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc ay\u0131rmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrer. Ger\u00e7ekten de bir idealist olarak Hegel ay\u0131ramazd\u0131. Bir idealist olarak Hegel ger\u00e7ekli\u011fin t\u00fcm\u00fcn\u00fc Mutlak Ide’nin bir belirtisi ve b\u00f6ylece ortak bir \u00f6z\u00fc payla\u015f\u0131yor olarak g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla, Hegel ‘kar\u015f\u0131tlar\u0131n birli\u011fi’ni’ de\u011fil, ‘kar\u015f\u0131tlar\u0131n \u00f6zde\u015fli\u011fi’ni’ vurgulam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Hegel farkl\u0131l\u0131klar\u0131 yaln\u0131zca tek bir \u00f6z\u00fcn farkl\u0131la\u015fmalar\u0131, ‘kendinde ayr\u0131mlar\u0131’ ya da belirtileri olarak g\u00f6rm\u00fc\u015f, onlar\u0131 ‘\u00f6nemsiz’, \u00f6zde\u015flikten daha az ‘ger\u00e7ek’ olarak de\u011ferlendirmi\u015f ve onlar\u0131n eylemini s\u00fcrekli ‘ask\u0131ya alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r’. \u00d6rne\u011fin, Hegel \u00fcretim ve t\u00fcketimin birli\u011fini do\u011fru olarak kavram\u0131\u015ft\u0131r, \u00e7\u00fcnk\u00fc \u00fcretilen t\u00fcketilmelidir ve hi\u00e7bir \u015fey \u00fcretilmedik\u00e7e t\u00fcketilemez. Fakat o yanl\u0131\u015fl\u0131kla yaln\u0131zca onlar\u0131n \u00f6zde\u015fli\u011fini vurgulam\u0131\u015f ve y\u00f6nelimlerindeki ve ama\u00e7lar\u0131ndaki farklar\u0131 \u00f6nemsememi\u015ftir. Bu, Hegel’in ikisinin ayr\u0131labilece\u011fine ve ayr\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131na ve a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 \u00fcretim krizi yaratt\u0131klar\u0131na dikkat etmesini \u00f6nlemi\u015ftir. Hegel ‘ger\u00e7ek ili\u015fkilerin kavranmas\u0131yla de\u011fil kavramlar\u0131n diyalektik dengelenmesiyle’ ilgilenir.
B\u00f6ylece, Hegel’in ontolojisi onun yaln\u0131zca birinci t\u00fcr kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011fa yani kar\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131ya duran varl\u0131klar\u0131n ortak bir \u00f6z\u00fc payla\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011fa dikkat etmesine izin vermi\u015ftir. \u00d6zellikle bu, Hegel’in ikinci t\u00fcr kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131, yani \u00f6z\u00fcn kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ya da Marx’\u0131n ‘temel \u00e7eli\u015fki’ olarak adland\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 tan\u0131mas\u0131n\u0131 engellemi\u015ftir. Marx, Hegel’in \u00fc\u00e7 kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131k t\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc birincisine indirgedi\u011finden ‘\u00fc\u00e7 kat hata’ yapma noktas\u0131na vard\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrer.
Birincisi, Hegel ikinci kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131k t\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc ilkiyle kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131rm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. B\u00f6ylece o, ger\u00e7ek a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 u\u00e7lar\u0131n asla uzla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lamayaca\u011f\u0131na dikkat etmekte yetersiz kalm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. B\u00fct\u00fcn a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 u\u00e7lar\u0131n ortak bir \u00f6z\u00fc payla\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve uzla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131labilece\u011fini d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnen Hegel’den farkl\u0131 olarak, Marx, baz\u0131 a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 u\u00e7lar\u0131n birbirini ‘s\u0131n\u0131rlad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131’ fakat ‘ortak bir konumda bulunmad\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131’ ve onlar\u0131n sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n hem ka\u00e7\u0131n\u0131lmaz hem de istenir oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrer. Bu, Marx’\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131f sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131 teorisinin mant\u0131ksal temeli olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcnmektedir. Marx’\u0131n temel \u00e7eli\u015fki kavray\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 da ilk kez geli\u015ftirdi\u011fi ayn\u0131 \u00e7al\u0131\u015fmada burjuvazinin tam antitezi olarak proletarya g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc ilk kez geli\u015ftirmesi t\u00fcm\u00fcyle bir rastlant\u0131 de\u011fildi. Marx, kapitalistin ve proleterin birbirine ba\u011f\u0131ml\u0131 oldu\u011funu ve onlar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131n Kuzey ve G\u00fcney Kutbu aras\u0131ndaki ile baz\u0131 \u00f6zellikleri payla\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 kabul eder, fakat kapitalist toplum geli\u015ftik\u00e7e iki s\u0131n\u0131f aras\u0131ndaki ili\u015fkinin karakterinin de\u011fi\u015fti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcrer. Onlar\u0131n \u00e7\u0131karlar\u0131 uzla\u015fmaz bir \u00e7at\u0131\u015fmada kilitlenir ve birinin varolu\u015fu di\u011ferinin var olmamas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirir. Dahas\u0131, \u00f6rg\u00fctlenen proletarya, kapitalistin y\u00f6neten varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 olmaks\u0131z\u0131n toplumu s\u00fcrd\u00fcrme yetene\u011fi kazan\u0131r. Bu a\u015famada onlar\u0131n kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ikince t\u00fcre ait olur; her biri di\u011ferini s\u0131n\u0131rlar, fakat ortak bir \u00f6z\u00fc payla\u015fmazlar. Bu noktayla daha fazla u\u011fra\u015famay\u0131z ve yaln\u0131zca Marx’\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131f sava\u015f\u0131m\u0131na uzla\u015fmas\u0131z yakla\u015f\u0131m\u0131n\u0131n mant\u0131ksal teorisinin arka plan\u0131ndan bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda daha iyi anla\u015f\u0131laca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve \u00f6ncekine (\u00f6ncekini) etkili bir \u015fekilde sald\u0131rmak (savunmak) i\u00e7in mant\u0131ksal teorisine (teorisinin), \u00f6zellikle onun ‘temel’ ya da ‘ger\u00e7ek’ kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131k kavray\u0131\u015f\u0131na (kavray\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131n) sald\u0131r\u0131lmas\u0131 (savunulmas\u0131) gerekti\u011fini not edece\u011fiz.
\u0130kincisi, Hegel \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131k t\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc birincisiyle kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131rm\u0131\u015f ve onun sonrakiyle ayn\u0131 tarzda \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fclebilece\u011fini ve \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fclmesi gerekti\u011fini d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. \u00d6rne\u011fin, o, birey ve toplum aras\u0131ndaki ve idealizm ve materyalizm aras\u0131ndaki kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131 birinci ile ayn\u0131 mant\u0131ksal t\u00fcrdenmi\u015f gibi de\u011ferlendirmi\u015f ve altta yatan ger\u00e7ekli\u011fin ger\u00e7ek do\u011fas\u0131 kavrand\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ortadan kalkan s\u00f6zde kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131klar oldu\u011funu g\u00f6rememi\u015ftir.
Hegel’in \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc hatas\u0131 ilk ikisinin bir sonucuydu. Son iki kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131k t\u00fcr\u00fcn\u00fc birincisiyle kar\u0131\u015ft\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, dolay\u0131mlaman\u0131n s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131na dikkat etmemi\u015ftir. \u00d6rne\u011fin, ger\u00e7ek sivil toplum ve devlet a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 u\u00e7lar\u0131yla kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131nda onlar\u0131 dolay\u0131mlamay\u0131 denemi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131mlanan varl\u0131klar isteneni vermeyince daha fazlas\u0131n\u0131 sa\u011flam\u0131\u015f ve kaotik ve tutars\u0131z bir devlet olu\u015fturma noktas\u0131na gelmi\u015ftir. Benzer \u015fekilde, idealizm ve materyalizm, bencillik ve \u00f6zgecilik gibi soyutlamalarla kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ya iki a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 u\u00e7tan birini se\u00e7mi\u015f ya da dolay\u0131mlaman\u0131n ne olanakl\u0131 ne de zorunlu oldu\u011funa dikkat etmeden onlar\u0131 dolay\u0131mlamaya \u00e7al\u0131\u015fm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Farkl\u0131 bir a\u00e7\u0131dan bak\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda idealizmi Hegel’e, ger\u00e7ek kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00f6nemsememesi ya da gizlemesiyle ve sahte kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00e7ok fazla ciddiye almas\u0131yla sonu\u00e7lanan ger\u00e7ek ve sahte kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ay\u0131rabilece\u011fi \u00f6l\u00e7\u00fct\u00fc vermemi\u015ftir.
Marx, Hegel’in felsefesinin (ve diyalektik y\u00f6nteminin) ilgili kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131n birinci t\u00fcre ait oldu\u011fu ya\u015fam alanlar\u0131nda ba\u015far\u0131l\u0131 oldu\u011funu ve di\u011fer iki t\u00fcrden birine ait oldu\u011funda ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131z oldu\u011funu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnm\u00fc\u015f g\u00f6r\u00fcnmektedir. Ideler d\u00fcnyas\u0131nda kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131k genellikle birinci t\u00fcrdendir. B\u00f6ylece Hegel, ge\u00e7mi\u015f felsefi sistemlerin oldu\u011fu kadar ahlaki, dinsel ve di\u011fer idelerin parlak ve b\u00fcy\u00fcleyici sentezlerini yapabilmi\u015ftir. Ayk\u0131r\u0131 olarak, kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131n genellikle di\u011fer iki t\u00fcrden oldu\u011fu ger\u00e7ek d\u00fcnyay\u0131 tart\u0131\u015f\u0131nca ba\u015far\u0131lar\u0131 son derece s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131yd\u0131. \u00d6rne\u011fin s\u0131n\u0131f \u00e7at\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 ikinci t\u00fcr kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131\u011f\u0131 simgeler. Hegel’in mant\u0131ksal teorisi i\u00e7sel olarak onu tart\u0131\u015fma yetene\u011finde olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, s\u0131n\u0131f \u00e7at\u0131\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n en b\u00fcy\u00fck \u00f6nemde oldu\u011fu toplumsal ve politik ya\u015famda ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131zl\u0131kla sonu\u00e7lan\u0131r. Bireysel ve genel \u00e7\u0131kar aras\u0131ndaki kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131k \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc t\u00fcrdendir. Ve yine mant\u0131ksal teorisi onu g\u00f6z \u00f6n\u00fcne almak i\u00e7in \u00e7ok dar oldu\u011fundan Hegel ona ba\u015far\u0131l\u0131 bir \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcm bulabilmekte yetersiz kal\u0131r.
Marx, Hegel’in kar\u015f\u0131tl\u0131k kavram\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlemesini kusurlu buldu\u011fundan onun dolay\u0131mlama \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlemesini de ba\u015far\u0131s\u0131z bulur. Marx’\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne g\u00f6re Hegel’in dolay\u0131mlama kavram\u0131n\u0131 kullan\u0131\u015f\u0131 genellikle diyalektik de\u011fildir. Hatta Hegel, soyut mant\u0131ksal kategorileri inat\u00e7\u0131 ampirik ger\u00e7ekli\u011fe y\u00fckledi\u011finden, kar\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131ya duran iki varl\u0131k gerektirdi\u011fi i\u00e7in de\u011fil fakat bir \u00fc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fc varl\u0131k ya da daha k\u00f6t\u00fcs\u00fc Hegel’in felsefesi onlar\u0131n dolay\u0131mlanmas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirdi\u011finden dolay\u0131mlayan bir varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 ortaya koymu\u015ftur. Dolay\u0131mlayan varl\u0131k i\u00e7sel olarak dolay\u0131mlanan varl\u0131klarla ili\u015fkili olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, onlar\u0131 dolay\u0131mlayamaz ve onun b\u00fct\u00fcn amac\u0131 bo\u015fa \u00e7\u0131kar. Dahas\u0131, dolay\u0131mlayan varl\u0131k do\u011fas\u0131yla uyumsuz bir rol oynamaya \u00e7a\u011fr\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan yaln\u0131zca bir ara\u00e7 olarak g\u00f6r\u00fclme noktas\u0131na gelir ve do\u011fal karakterini ve \u00f6nemini kaybeder.
Dahas\u0131, Hegel dolay\u0131mlanan varl\u0131klar\u0131n gereksinmelerine duyarl\u0131 olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, onun dolay\u0131mlayan varl\u0131\u011f\u0131, niyetlenilenin kar\u015f\u0131t\u0131 bir rol oynama noktas\u0131na gelir. Dolay\u0131mlayan bir varl\u0131k kar\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131ya duran iki varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 uzla\u015ft\u0131rmak ve birle\u015ftirmek \u00fczere ortaya konur. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla o ikincil bir rol oynamak \u00fczere tasarlanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Ger\u00e7ek ger\u00e7ekte kar\u015f\u0131t\u0131 olur. Dolay\u0131mlayan varl\u0131k daha y\u00fcksek ya da daha \u00fcst\u00fcn bir varl\u0131k olur ve dolay\u0131mlananlar onun kendini ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmesinin ara\u00e7lar\u0131 olurlar. Teoride dolay\u0131mlayan varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n dolay\u0131mlanan varl\u0131klar\u0131n ortak \u00f6z\u00fcn\u00fc simgeledi\u011finden de\u011feri ve \u00f6nemi oldu\u011fu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcl\u00fcr; ger\u00e7ek ger\u00e7ekte dolay\u0131mlanan varl\u0131k dolay\u0131mlayan varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 cisimlendirme derecesine g\u00f6re de\u011fer ve \u00f6nem kazan\u0131r. Marx \u015f\u00f6yle der:[32]
ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7ta a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 u\u00e7lar aras\u0131nda dolay\u0131mlay\u0131c\u0131 olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcnen dolay\u0131mlayan varl\u0131k, kar\u015f\u0131 kar\u015f\u0131ya duran kutuplar\u0131 i\u00e7erdi\u011finden ve nihayetinde her zaman a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 u\u00e7lar\u0131n kendileriyle, hareket, ya da ili\u015fkiyle kar\u015f\u0131la\u015ft\u0131r\u0131ld\u0131\u011f\u0131nda tek yanl\u0131 daha y\u00fcksek bir g\u00fc\u00e7 olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcnden, zorunlu olarak, kendisiyle dolay\u0131mlama olarak, a\u015f\u0131r\u0131 u\u00e7lar\u0131n yaln\u0131zca kendini \u00f6ne s\u00fcrmek i\u00e7in as\u0131lt\u0131s\u0131nda tutundu\u011fu \u00f6zerk varsay\u0131m olan u\u011fraklar\u0131 niteli\u011finde olan \u00f6zne (Subjekt) olarak, tek ba\u015f\u0131na \u00f6zerk olan olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcnd\u00fc\u011f\u00fc yere kadar diyalektik bi\u00e7imde geli\u015fir.
Marx bu g\u00f6r\u00fcng\u00fcye dinde dikkat \u00e7ekmi\u015ftir. \u00d6rne\u011fin H\u0131ristiyanl\u0131kta ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7ta Tanr\u0131’y\u0131 ve insan\u0131 dolay\u0131mlamak \u00fczere ortaya konan Isa fig\u00fcr\u00fc her ikisinden daha \u00f6nemli olur, b\u00f6ylece Tanr\u0131’n\u0131n Isa’n\u0131nkinden ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z bir iradesi yoktur ve Isa’n\u0131n O oldu\u011funu s\u00f6yledi\u011fidir, ve insan\u0131n ona olan sadakatinden ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z bir onuru yoktur. Benzer olarak, ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7ta Isa’y\u0131 ve ‘s\u0131radan’ insan\u0131 dolay\u0131mlamak \u00fczere ortaya konulan papaz her ikisinden daha \u00f6nemli olur. Marx ayn\u0131 \u015feyin Hegel’de oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrer. Dolay\u0131mlay\u0131c\u0131 efendi olur. O dolay\u0131mlanan varl\u0131klar\u0131 ayr\u0131 tutarak ve b\u00fct\u00fcnle\u015fme i\u00e7in kendine ba\u011f\u0131ml\u0131 tutarak kendini vazge\u00e7ilmez k\u0131lar. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla dolay\u0131mlama s\u00fcreci hiyerar\u015fik kural\u0131 g\u00fc\u00e7lendirmenin incelikli bir yoludur ve dolay\u0131mlama mant\u0131\u011f\u0131 ger\u00e7ekte h\u00fckmetme mant\u0131\u011f\u0131d\u0131r. Yanl\u0131\u015f anlamadan ka\u00e7\u0131nmak i\u00e7in, Marx tam olarak dolay\u0131mlamaya de\u011fil fakat yaln\u0131zca dolay\u0131mlanan varl\u0131klar\u0131 sadece bir araca indirgeyen ve h\u00fckmetme bi\u00e7imi olu\u015fturan bir t\u00fcr dolay\u0131mlamaya kar\u015f\u0131 \u00e7\u0131kar.
Marx, Althusser ve di\u011fer pek \u00e7ok Marksist i\u00e7in Hegel’in politik tutuculu\u011funun anahtar\u0131 olan, Hegel’in olumsuzlaman\u0131n olumsuzlanmas\u0131 kavray\u0131\u015f\u0131n\u0131 olduk\u00e7a \u015fiddetli ele\u015ftirir. Marx, Feuerbach’\u0131 izleyerek olumsuzlaman\u0131n olumsuzlanmas\u0131n\u0131n ‘zorunlu’ bir a\u015fama olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen diyalekti\u011fin ‘amac\u0131’ olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrer. Olumsuzlaman\u0131n olumsuzlanmas\u0131ndan ortaya \u00e7\u0131kan varl\u0131k ‘kendinde zemin bulan’, ‘kendinden kaynaklanan’, ve ‘kendisi i\u00e7in ge\u00e7erli’ de\u011fildir. O, varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 olumsuzlad\u0131\u011f\u0131 \u00fczerinden varsayar, ve bunun sonucu ‘kar\u015f\u0131t\u0131yla y\u00fckl\u00fcd\u00fcr’. Di\u011fer bir deyi\u015fle olumsuzlaman\u0131n olumsuzlanmas\u0131 negatif ve asala\u011f\u0131ms\u0131 bir a\u015famad\u0131r ve ‘do\u011fru’ ya da ‘mutlak pozitifi’ simgelemez. Bu, Marx’\u0131n kom\u00fcnizmi tarihin ‘amac\u0131’ olarak almay\u0131 reddetmesinin nedenlerinden biridir. ‘\u00d6zel m\u00fclkiyetin ortadan kalkmas\u0131yla kendine dolay\u0131mland\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan’ kom\u00fcnizm olumsuzlaman\u0131n olumsuzlanmas\u0131n\u0131 simgeler ve eninde sonunda yeri ‘kendinden kaynaklanan pozitif bir h\u00fcmanizma’ taraf\u0131ndan al\u0131nmal\u0131d\u0131r. Marx, Feuerbach gibi, Hegel’in \u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc diyalektik \u00f6r\u00fcnt\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn do\u011fru olarak pozitif bir a\u015fama sa\u011flamad\u0131\u011f\u0131na inan\u0131r, fakat diyalekti\u011fin nas\u0131l d\u00f6rtl\u00fc yap\u0131labilece\u011fini a\u00e7\u0131klamaz. Tarihte s\u0131k s\u0131k oldu\u011fu gibi, bu uzun zamand\u0131r unutulmu\u015f fikir yak\u0131n zamanlarda Eric Weil taraf\u0131ndan yeniden kullan\u0131ma sokulmu\u015ftur. J. N. Findlay’in ona tepkisinden s\u00f6z etmeye de\u011fer:[33]
Ben de Prof. Weil ile ayn\u0131 fikirdeyim ve Hegel’in \u00fc\u00e7l\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fcn bir d\u00f6rtl\u00fcye d\u00f6n\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr\u00fclmesi gerekti\u011fi doktriniyle ilgileniyorum. Bunu, yani bir fikriniz var ve sonra fikrin olumsuzlamas\u0131na sahipsiniz, daha sonra fikri olumsuzluyorsunuz, ve sonra d\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fc bir ad\u0131m var ve ondan \u00e7\u0131kan yeni bir pozitif fikir elde ediyorsunuz, daha \u00f6nce hi\u00e7 anlamam\u0131\u015ft\u0131m. Onun \u00fc\u00e7l\u00fc olmaktan \u00e7ok d\u00f6rtl\u00fc oldu\u011funu kastediyorum. Bu ilgin\u00e7 ve de\u011ferli bir kavramd\u0131r ve ku\u015fkusuz Hegel’in buna benzer \u015feyler s\u00f6yledi\u011fi pasajlar vard\u0131r.
Marx, Feuerbach’\u0131 izleyerek, Hegel’in olumsuzlaman\u0131n olumsuzlanmas\u0131n\u0131 sahte ve ele\u015ftirel-olmayan, Hegel’in yanl\u0131\u015f pozitivizminin k\u00f6k\u00fc bi\u00e7iminde adland\u0131r\u0131r. Marx, diyalektik y\u00f6ntem hem var olan\u0131n rasyonelli\u011fini kabul eder hem de eninde sonunda yerinin al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131n zorunlulu\u011fu \u00fczerinde \u0131srarla dururken, Hegel’in yaln\u0131zca onun tutucu karakterini vurgulad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrer. \u00d6rne\u011fin, Hegel dinin insan\u0131n kendine yabanc\u0131la\u015fmas\u0131n\u0131n bir bi\u00e7imi oldu\u011funu kabul eder ve yerinin felsefe taraf\u0131ndan al\u0131naca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrer; yine Hegel hem dini ortadan kald\u0131rmaz hem de onu insan\u0131n kendini do\u011frulamas\u0131 olarak de\u011ferlendirir. Marx bunu ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc bulur. E\u011fer din yabanc\u0131la\u015fm\u0131\u015f insan \u00f6zbilinciyse ve felsefede yok edildiyse, o zaman tan\u0131m gere\u011fi insan akl\u0131 dinin ortadan kalkmas\u0131n\u0131 istemelidir.
Marx’\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne g\u00f6re olumsuzlaman\u0131n olumsuzlanmas\u0131, her ikisi de Hegel’in idealizmiyle yak\u0131ndan ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 olan iki nedenle Hegel’de pozitivist ve ele\u015ftirel-olmayan bir ilke olarak kal\u0131r. Birincisi, Hegel bir idealist oldu\u011fundan, ger\u00e7ek kurumlar\u0131 de\u011fil, fakat yaln\u0131zca bizim onlar hakk\u0131ndaki fikirlerimizi ele al\u0131r. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla olumsuzlaman\u0131n olumsuzlanmas\u0131, ger\u00e7eklikte de\u011fil d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncede olur.[34] \u00d6rne\u011fin, din felsefesinde Hegel dini somut bir toplumsal etkinlik olarak de\u011fil, bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce kategorisi olarak ele al\u0131r. Ve dini de\u011fil fakat yaln\u0131zca onun y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckteki d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesinin ya da felsefesinin yerini de\u011fi\u015ftirir. Benzer olarak Hukuk Felsefesi’nde \u015fah\u0131s hakk\u0131n\u0131n yerinin ahlak taraf\u0131ndan, ahlak\u0131n yerinin din taraf\u0131ndan, vb., al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6yledi\u011finde, ger\u00e7ekte kastetti\u011fi \u015fah\u0131s hakk\u0131n\u0131n d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesinin ya da kavram\u0131n\u0131n, yeri al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda ahlak d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesini ya da kavram\u0131n\u0131 \u00fcretti\u011fidir, ve b\u00f6yle devam eder. B\u00f6ylece Hegel ger\u00e7ek kurumlar\u0131n kendilerini de\u011fil, \u00f6zel m\u00fclkiyetin, ailenin, dinin, vs.’nin ‘geleneksel kavray\u0131\u015flar\u0131n\u0131’ ve ‘anlay\u0131\u015f’ bi\u00e7imlerini y\u0131kar. Sonu\u00e7 olarak, Hegel felsefesi ger\u00e7ekten devrimci ve y\u0131k\u0131c\u0131 olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen radikalizminin hi\u00e7bir pratik sonucu yoktur ve radikalizmi ‘yaln\u0131zca g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcrdedir’.
\u0130kincisi, Hegel bir idealist oldu\u011fundan var olan her kurumu ve prati\u011fi Geist’in bir ifadesi olarak g\u00f6r\u00fcr ve korumak ister. Hegel’in felsefesi b\u00f6ylece bir gerilim i\u00e7erir. Diyalektik y\u00f6ntemi, Hegel’in var olan her \u015feyi olumsuzlamas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirirken idealizmi korumas\u0131n\u0131 gerektirir. Bu \u00e7at\u0131\u015fma olumsuzlaman\u0131n olumsuzlanmas\u0131 kavram\u0131 arac\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131yla \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcl\u00fcr. Ba\u015flang\u0131\u00e7taki olumsuzlama diyalektik y\u00f6ntemin radikal isteklerini kar\u015f\u0131lar; izleyen olumsuzlaman\u0131n olumsuzlanmas\u0131 orijinal varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 geri d\u00f6nd\u00fcr\u00fcr ve Hegel’in idealist ontolojisinin tutucu isteklerini kar\u015f\u0131lar. B\u00f6ylece olumsuzlaman\u0131n olumsuzlanmas\u0131 kendi kendisiyle \u00e7eli\u015fen ve ‘\u00f6zg\u00fcl’ bir varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 hem ortadan kald\u0131rmay\u0131 ve hem de korumay\u0131, ‘inkar ve korumay\u0131, inkar ve do\u011frulamay\u0131’ g\u00fcvenceye alma ‘rol\u00fcn\u00fc’ oynar. Hegel bir varl\u0131\u011f\u0131 bir d\u00fczeyde, ba\u015fka bir d\u00fczeyde yeniden ortaya \u00e7\u0131karmak \u00fczere reddetti\u011finden olumsuzlaman\u0131n olumsuzlanmas\u0131 asla varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n ‘ortadan kalkmas\u0131’n\u0131n ‘ge\u00e7ersizli\u011fini’ gerektirmez ve yaln\u0131zca stat\u00fckoyu kutsalla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131r.<\/p>\n

V<\/p>\n

B\u00f6l\u00fcm\u00fc bitirmeden \u00f6nce, Marx’\u0131n Hegel ele\u015ftirisinin \u00f6nemli imalar\u0131n\u0131 vurgulamak yararl\u0131 olacakt\u0131r. Birincisi, Hegel \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlemesi Marx’\u0131 bir ara\u015ft\u0131rma bi\u00e7imi olarak felsefenin do\u011fal olarak \u015f\u00fcpheli oldu\u011funa karar vermeye g\u00f6t\u00fcrd\u00fc.[35] Marx i\u00e7in, geleneksel t\u00fcrde metafizik ara\u015ft\u0131rmay\u0131 kastetti\u011fi felsefe bir rasyonalist dinin yerini tutandan daha fazlas\u0131 de\u011fildi. S\u0131radan insan d\u00fcnya taraf\u0131ndan \u015fa\u015fk\u0131nl\u0131\u011fa u\u011frat\u0131l\u0131r ve d\u00fcnyay\u0131 kimin yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131, \u015f\u00f6yle ya da b\u00f6yle insan\u0131n ni\u00e7in yarat\u0131lmas\u0131 gerekti\u011fi, insanl\u0131k tarihinin neden sahip oldu\u011fu bi\u00e7imi ald\u0131\u011f\u0131 gibi sorular sorar. Ve genellikle yan\u0131tlar i\u00e7in dine d\u00f6ner. Filozof; ki\u015fisel Tanr\u0131, cennet ve cehennem fikirlerini kabul edilemez bulur. Ne var ki sorular\u0131n tamam\u0131n\u0131 ya da en az\u0131ndan bir k\u0131sm\u0131n\u0131 ciddiye al\u0131r. Dini reddetti\u011finden, kendi rasyonel yan\u0131tlar\u0131n\u0131 vererek devam eder.
Marx filozofun sordu\u011fu sorular\u0131n, a\u015fk\u0131n bir varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n varolu\u015funa dayanmalar\u0131 anlam\u0131nda, dinsel nitelikte oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrer. Do\u011fan\u0131n \u015f\u00f6yle ya da b\u00f6yle ni\u00e7in var oldu\u011funu sormak, birisinin onu yaratt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ve b\u00f6yle yapmakta bir amac\u0131 oldu\u011funu varsaymakt\u0131r. Ve tarihin ni\u00e7in belli bir ‘bi\u00e7ime’ ya da ‘y\u00f6ne’ girdi\u011fini sormak a\u015fk\u0131n bir varl\u0131\u011f\u0131n insanl\u0131k tarihini y\u00f6nlendirdi\u011fini varsaymakt\u0131r. Sorular dinsel nitelikte oldu\u011fundan, felsefe onlar\u0131 ancak kendisi dinselle\u015ferek yan\u0131tlayabilir. Felsefe Tanr\u0131 fikrini, yaln\u0131zca, yerine Mutlak, Geist, T\u00f6z, Ego ve A\u015fk\u0131n Ilke gibi \u00e7ok farkl\u0131 olmayan varl\u0131klar koyarak reddeder. Dinin iki d\u00fcnya teorisini yerine kendisininkini koymak \u00fczere reddeder. Dinsel v\u00fccut bulma* fikrini reddeder fakat A\u015fk\u0131n ilkenin kendini d\u00fcnyevi varl\u0131klarda ‘cisimlendirdi\u011fini’ ya da ‘g\u00f6sterdi\u011fini’ ileri s\u00fcrerek kendisininkini ortaya koyar. Dinsel mucizeleri reddeder fakat do\u011fay\u0131 yaratan Ego, d\u00fcnyay\u0131 yaratan Mutlak Ide, farkl\u0131 bi\u00e7imler alan ya da farkl\u0131 bi\u00e7imlerde g\u00f6r\u00fcnen T\u00f6z hakk\u0131nda konu\u015ftu\u011funda kendisininkini ortaya koymaya zorlan\u0131r. K\u0131saca, Marx felsefenin nihayetinde ‘kavramsalla\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015f ve rasyonel olarak geli\u015ftirilmi\u015f dinden ba\u015fka bir \u015fey olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131’, reddeder gibi g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcrken bir din edinmenin yolu oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcndedir.
Marx’a g\u00f6re dinsel sorular idealizmin do\u011frulu\u011funu, yani bilincin maddeye \u00f6nceli\u011fini ve ba\u011f\u0131ms\u0131z varolu\u015funun olanakl\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 varsayar. B\u00f6ylece hi\u00e7bir ara\u015ft\u0131rma bi\u00e7imi kendisi idealist olmaks\u0131z\u0131n onlar\u0131 yan\u0131tlayamaz. Marx i\u00e7in, bu, materyalist denilenler de i\u00e7inde olmak \u00fczere neden filozoflar\u0131n genellikle \u015fu ya da bu formda idealizmi benimseme noktas\u0131na geldiklerini a\u00e7\u0131klar.[36] Marx, idealizmi reddetti\u011finden, me\u015fru bir ara\u015ft\u0131rma bi\u00e7imi olarak metafizi\u011fin kendisini reddeder. Daha \u00f6nce g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcm\u00fcz gibi Marx onu di\u011fer zeminlerde de reddeder. Marx’\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne g\u00f6re metafizi\u011fin son derece soyut kavramlar\u0131 me\u015fru ara\u015ft\u0131rma nesneleri de\u011fildir. Metafizik zorunlu olarak Marx’\u0131n Hegel’de ele\u015ftirdi\u011fi iki a\u015famal\u0131 ara\u015ft\u0131rmay\u0131 gerektirir. Ve onun, d\u00fcnyan\u0131n, di\u011fer insanlar\u0131n ve kendimizin var oldu\u011funu nas\u0131l bildi\u011fimiz gibi standart sorular\u0131, yaln\u0131zca kendini ‘saf ak\u0131l’ olarak tan\u0131mlayan ve bir d\u00fcnya \u00f6tesi Ar\u015fimetyan konumda durdu\u011funu ve ak\u0131l taraf\u0131ndan garanti verilmedik\u00e7e duyu alg\u0131lar\u0131na g\u00fcvenmeyi reddetti\u011fini ileri s\u00fcren bir birey taraf\u0131ndan sorulabilir.
\u0130kincisi, Marx’\u0131n Hegel ele\u015ftirisi sonraki klasik ekonomistleri ele\u015ftirisi i\u00e7in bir model olmu\u015ftur. Marx daha sonra klasik ekonomistlerin yaz\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131 inceledi\u011finde, onlar\u0131n da genellikle Hegel’de \u015fiddetle ele\u015ftirdi\u011fi y\u00f6ntemi kulland\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 g\u00f6rd\u00fc. Marx’\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne g\u00f6re klasik ekonomistler farkl\u0131 \u00fcretim bi\u00e7imlerinin tarihsel \u00f6zg\u00fcll\u00fc\u011f\u00fcn\u00fc de\u011ferlendirememi\u015flerdir. Tersine, onlar \u00fcretim bi\u00e7imlerinin payla\u015f\u0131lan \u00f6zelliklerini soyutlam\u0131\u015flar ve onlar\u0131n hepsinin temelde evrensel olarak ortak \u00f6\u011felerin farkl\u0131 birle\u015fimlerinden daha fazla bir \u015fey olmad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015flerdir. Marx, klasik politik ekonomiyi b\u00f6yle de\u011ferlendirdi\u011finden, bazen ondan metafizik ve soyut olarak bahseder.[37] Hegel gibi, klasik politik ekonomi soyut ve tarihsel olmayan kavramlar\u0131 kullanm\u0131\u015f, y\u00fcr\u00fcrl\u00fckteki toplumsal d\u00fczeni ele\u015ftirel-olmayan bir bi\u00e7imde de\u011ferlendirmi\u015f ve idealist iki katl\u0131 \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmleme bi\u00e7imini kullanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
Marx’\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne g\u00f6re Hegel ve klasik ekonomistler hem y\u00f6ntembilimsel ve hem de antropolojik d\u00fczeyde ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131d\u0131r. Her ikisi i\u00e7in benzer bi\u00e7imde, emek, insan\u0131n en yarat\u0131c\u0131 ve en ay\u0131rdedici etkinli\u011fidir. Emek sayesinde, insan kendisini hayvanlar d\u00fcnyas\u0131ndan \u00e7\u0131karabilmi\u015f, rasyonel g\u00fc\u00e7lerini geli\u015ftirebilmi\u015f, uygarl\u0131\u011f\u0131 yaratabilmi\u015f ve tarihsel kaderini kendisi bi\u00e7imlendirebilmi\u015ftir. Marx’\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne g\u00f6re Hegel’in ‘duru\u015f noktas\u0131 modern politik ekonomininkiydi’; Hegel, Adam Smith’in, Fergusson’un ve Isko\u00e7 tarihsel okulunun temel sezgilerini alm\u0131\u015f ve onlar\u0131 spek\u00fclatif bir ifadeye b\u00fcr\u00fcnd\u00fcrm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr.[38] Onlar modern \u00e7a\u011f\u0131n ekonomistleriyse Hegel filozofuydu. Anlat\u0131m deyimlerindeki farkl\u0131l\u0131klara ra\u011fmen, Marx onlar\u0131n d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncelerinin bi\u00e7imlerinin ve i\u00e7eriklerinin ve hatta \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmleme bi\u00e7imlerinin temelde benzer oldu\u011funu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnm\u00fc\u015ft\u00fcr. Bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f dikkate al\u0131nd\u0131\u011f\u0131nda, Marx’\u0131n birini di\u011ferinin g\u00f6z\u00fcnden okumu\u015f olmas\u0131 ve her ikisinin hem b\u00fcy\u00fcleyici ve hem de \u00e7arp\u0131c\u0131 betimlemelerini sunmu\u015f olmas\u0131 \u00e7ok az \u015fa\u015f\u0131rt\u0131c\u0131d\u0131r.
\u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fcs\u00fc, Marx Hegel’in insanl\u0131k tarihini \u00e7a\u011fda\u015f Alman toplumunun duru\u015f noktas\u0131ndan g\u00f6rd\u00fc\u011f\u00fcne ve \u00e7a\u011fda\u015f Alman toplumu i\u00e7in bir apoloji sundu\u011funa inanm\u0131\u015f olmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, Hegel’in felsefesinin yaln\u0131zca bir apoloji oldu\u011funu s\u00f6ylemek istememi\u015ftir. Kesinlikle de\u011fil. Marx, Hegel’i bir ‘dahi’, bir ‘b\u00fcy\u00fck d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr’ olarak adland\u0131rm\u0131\u015f ve kendini onun ‘\u00f6\u011frencisi’ olarak bildirmi\u015ftir. Marx, Hegel’in mant\u0131k, tarih ve felsefi antropoloji alanlar\u0131ndaki parlak ‘ke\u015fiflerine’ ve ge\u00e7mi\u015f ve \u00f6zellikle bug\u00fcnk\u00fc tarihsel d\u00f6nemlerin derin \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlemesine en c\u00f6mert sayg\u0131lar\u0131n\u0131 da sunmu\u015ftur. Marx Hegel’in bilin\u00e7li olarak bir apolojist olmay\u0131 ama\u00e7lad\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 da d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnmemi\u015ftir. Marx, Hegel’in do\u011frulu\u011fun pe\u015finde tarafs\u0131z bir ara\u015ft\u0131rmac\u0131 oldu\u011funu yeterinden fazla a\u00e7\u0131k\u00e7a anlatm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
Marx’\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde Hegel’in nas\u0131l bir apolojist oldu\u011fu t\u00fcm\u00fcyle a\u00e7\u0131k de\u011fildir. Marx birbiriyle ba\u011flant\u0131l\u0131 be\u015f a\u00e7\u0131klama sunar g\u00f6r\u00fcnmektedir. Birincisi, Hegel’in felsefe g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fc k\u0131smen sorumluydu. Hegel i\u00e7in felsefe insanla d\u00fcnyay\u0131 uzla\u015ft\u0131rmaya u\u011fra\u015ft\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan do\u011fal olarak pozitivisttir ve ele\u015ftirel de\u011fildir. Ikincisi, bir idealist olarak Hegel fikirleri son derece soyut ve bi\u00e7imsel bir d\u00fczeyde ele alm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Bunlar \u00e7ok genel ve ‘bo\u015f’ oldu\u011fundan onlara yaln\u0131zca \u00f6zg\u00fcl bir tarihsel toplumdan, esasen kendisininkinden \u00e7\u0131karabilece\u011fi bir i\u00e7erik vermek zorundayd\u0131. \u00dc\u00e7\u00fcnc\u00fcs\u00fc, Hegel insan\u0131n bilincinin kendi toplumu taraf\u0131ndan ne kadar \u00e7ok bi\u00e7imlendirildi\u011fini asla de\u011ferlendiremedi\u011finden, kendi toplumsal temelini asla ara\u015ft\u0131rmam\u0131\u015f ve kendisine apa\u00e7\u0131k g\u00f6r\u00fcnenin ger\u00e7ekten de \u00f6yle oldu\u011fu yan\u0131lsamas\u0131na e\u011filimli kalm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. D\u00f6rd\u00fcnc\u00fcs\u00fc, Hegel toplumuna kar\u015f\u0131 ele\u015ftirel bir tutum tak\u0131nmam\u0131\u015f ve onu hemen hemen oldu\u011fu gibi kabul etmi\u015ftir. Hegel entellekt\u00fcel olarak kendi toplumunun d\u0131\u015f\u0131na \u00e7\u0131kmam\u0131\u015f ve kendi toplumundan uzakla\u015fmam\u0131\u015ft\u0131r. Sonu\u00e7 olarak, Hegel kendi toplumunun tarihselli\u011finin hi\u00e7bir ger\u00e7ek de\u011ferlendirmesine, ve onu de\u011ferlendirmek i\u00e7in hi\u00e7bir standarda sahip de\u011fildir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla Hegel onun rasyonalite de\u011ferlerini ve standartlar\u0131n\u0131 evrenselle\u015ftirmesine yard\u0131m edemezdi.
Kesin olmamakla birlikte, Marx d\u00f6rd\u00fcnden en sonuncusunun can al\u0131c\u0131 oldu\u011funu d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr g\u00f6r\u00fcn\u00fcr. Esasen Hegel kendi toplumunu ele\u015ftirel olarak incelemedi\u011finden di\u011fer \u00fc\u00e7 fakt\u00f6r etkili olmu\u015ftur. Hegel toplumuna kar\u015f\u0131 ele\u015ftirel olmu\u015f olsayd\u0131, filozofun g\u00f6revinin insanla d\u00fcnyay\u0131 uzla\u015ft\u0131rmak oldu\u011fu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnde olmayacakt\u0131. Ele\u015ftirel-olmayan idealizmi de desteklemeyecekti. Son olarak, kendi toplumunun de\u011ferlerini bu kadar kolay evrenselle\u015ftiremeyecekti de. Marx’\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne g\u00f6re toplumun radikal bir ele\u015ftirisi onu de\u011fi\u015ftirmek ister. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla Marx onun tarihselli\u011fini vurgulamaktan ve genelde s\u0131k\u0131 bir tarihsel tutum geli\u015ftirmekten ka\u00e7\u0131namaz. Dahas\u0131, Marx’\u0131n idealizmden, \u00f6zellikle do\u011fa felsefesini do\u011frulay\u0131c\u0131 g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnden \u015fiddetle s\u00fcphelenmesi olas\u0131d\u0131r. Marx’\u0131n ayn\u0131 zamanda, insan bilinci tarihsel olarak s\u0131n\u0131rl\u0131 oldu\u011fundan, kendi toplumunun kurum ve fikirlerinin \u00f6l\u00fcms\u00fczle\u015ftirilemeyece\u011fine dikkat \u00e7ekmesi olas\u0131d\u0131r.
Be\u015fincisi, Marx i\u00e7in Hegel’in felsefesi son derece karma\u015f\u0131k bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce toplulu\u011fuydu. Hegel felsefesi ideolojikti, fakat derin sezgiler de i\u00e7eriyordu. Dahas\u0131, insanl\u0131k tarihinin en i\u00e7 do\u011fas\u0131n\u0131 anlamaya kararl\u0131 derin bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fcr olarak Hegel varsay\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131 s\u00fcrekli incelemi\u015f, onlar\u0131 ac\u0131mas\u0131z bir ele\u015ftiriye t\u00e2bi tutmu\u015f, ve bazen kendi apolojetik tarafgirli\u011fini zay\u0131flatan sezgiler geli\u015ftirmi\u015ftir. Dolay\u0131s\u0131yla onun sistemi bir i\u00e7 gerilimle karakterize edilir. Hegel sistemi yap\u0131sal olarak tarafgirdir, fakat nesnel olarak tarafgirli\u011fi zay\u0131flatan fikirler de i\u00e7erir. Marx’\u0131n belirtti\u011fi gibi, Hegel d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncede s\u00fcrekli haddini a\u015f\u0131p y\u00fcz\u00fcne g\u00f6z\u00fcne bula\u015ft\u0131r\u0131r, bazen iddialar\u0131 ‘g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f a\u00e7\u0131s\u0131n\u0131 \u00e7ok a\u015far’, ve ger\u00e7ekten onun tarafgir toplumsal varsay\u0131mlar\u0131n\u0131n ‘ele\u015ftirisinin b\u00fct\u00fcn \u00f6\u011feleri’ felsefesinde ‘i\u00e7erilmi\u015ftir’.[39] Ancak, Hegel’in d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesi onun tarafgirli\u011fiyle s\u0131n\u0131rland\u0131\u011f\u0131ndan, baz\u0131 iddialar\u0131n\u0131n temel ana fikrini t\u00fcm\u00fcyle de\u011ferlendiremezdi ve derin sezgilerini i\u015fleyemezdi. Onun d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesi ‘\u00f6z a\u00e7\u0131kl\u0131k’tan yoksundur. Hegel’in sezgilerini s\u0131n\u0131rlay\u0131c\u0131 ideolojik \u00e7er\u00e7eveden kurtarmak, ve onlar\u0131 temel olarak kullanmak Hegel’e sempati duyan ele\u015ftirmenlerinin g\u00f6reviydi.
Bu ola\u011fan\u00fcst\u00fc, bir d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcnce sisteminin kendi \u00f6tesine i\u015faret edebilece\u011fi ve nesnel olarak yazar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6znel olarak s\u00f6ylemeye niyetlendi\u011finden \u00e7ok daha fazlas\u0131n\u0131 s\u00f6yleyebilece\u011fi g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn\u00fc daha sonra inceleyece\u011fiz. \u015eimdilik yaln\u0131zca bunun Marx’ta yinelenen bir tema oldu\u011funu ve onun d\u00fc\u015f\u00fcncesinin yap\u0131sal ilkelerinden birini olu\u015fturdu\u011funu not etmemiz gerekiyor. Eugene Sue’nin Mysteries of Paris’i* \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcmlemesi s\u0131ras\u0131nda, Marx, burjuva ideolojisinin i\u00e7inde hapsolmas\u0131na ra\u011fmen, Sue’nin zaman zaman onun s\u0131n\u0131rlar\u0131n\u0131n \u00f6tesine ge\u00e7ti\u011fini ve ‘burjuva \u00f6nyarg\u0131s\u0131n\u0131n y\u00fcz\u00fcne bir \u015famar\u0131’ ima eden \u015feyler s\u00f6yledi\u011fini belirtir. Marx, Diderot’yu, Balzac’\u0131, klasik ekonomistleri ve di\u011fer baz\u0131 yazarlar\u0131 benzer bi\u00e7imde de\u011ferlendirir.[40]<\/p>\n

Kaynak\u00e7a:<\/p>\n

[CW] Marx, K. and Engels, F. Collected Works (Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1975)
[C] Marx, K. Capital, A Critique of Political Economy, Samuel Moore and Edward Aveling (trans.) (Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1970)
[C] Marx, K. Capital, (2 vols. Lawrence and Wishart, London, 1971)
[G] Marx, K. Grundrisse: Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy, bir \u00f6ns\u00f6zle M. Nicolaus (Penguin, Hardmondsworth, 1973) taraf\u0131ndan \u00e7evrilmi\u015ftir.
[SC] Selected Correspondence(Moscow, 1975)<\/p>\n

* Orijinal ba\u015fl\u0131\u011f\u0131 “Hegel” olan bu yaz\u0131 \u015fu kaynaktan al\u0131nm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r: Bhikhu Parekh, Marx\u2019s Theory of Ideology, Baltimore 1982, The John Hopkins University Press, ss. 73-99.<\/p>\n

** Apoloji: savunca, savunma, bir \u015feyin savunmas\u0131n\u0131 yapmak, bir \u015feyin \u00f6vg\u00fcs\u00fcn\u00fc yapmak. Tarihsel olarak teoloji terimidir. H\u0131ristiyanl\u0131\u011f\u0131 savunan yap\u0131tlar bu adla an\u0131l\u0131r. (\u00c7evirenin notu)<\/p>\n

[1] Sa\u011f ve Sol Hegelcilerin Hegel’e kar\u015f\u0131 tutumlar\u0131n\u0131n kusursuz bir tart\u0131\u015fmas\u0131 i\u00e7in bak\u0131n\u0131z: David McLellan, The Young Hegelians and Karl Marx (Macmillan, London, 1969) ve Sidney Hook, From Hegel to Marx (University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1971).
[2] CW, Vol. 1, ss. 84-85.
[3] CW, Vol. 3, s. 333.
[4] Hegel, The Science of Logic, Miller (trans.) (Allen and Unwin, London, 1969), s. 154 dipnot (d).
[5] CW, Vol. 3, ss. 7d, 23d.
[6] CW, Vol. 4, s. 139. Ayn\u0131 konu farkl\u0131 bir vurguyla Vol. 5, s. 98’de a\u00e7\u0131klanm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.
[7] CW, Vol. 4, ss. 57d.
[8] CW, Vol. 3, ss. 16d, 23d.
[9] A.g.e., s. 23.
[10] A.g.e., s. 11.
[11] A.g.e., s. 12.
[12] A.g.e., s. 14.
[13] CW, Vol. 5, s. 283.
[14] CW, Vol. 3, s. 12.
[15] A.g.e., s. 343d.
[16] A.g.e., s. 16.
[17] A.g.e., s. 14.
[18] A.g.e., s. 91.
[19] A.g.e., s. 48.
[20] A.g.e., s. 15.
[21] A.g.e., s. 21.
[22] A.g.e., s. 39.
[23] A.g.e., ss. 23, 342d.
[24] A.g.e., s. 39.
[25] CW, Vol. 5, s. 175.
[26] CW, Vol. 4, s. 179.
[27] CW, Vol. 3, s. 177d.
[28] A.g.e., ss. 39, 42, 91.
[29] A.g.e., s. 88.
[30] A.g.e., ss. 88-89. Paragraf tam olarak a\u00e7\u0131k de\u011fildir ve benim yorumumun olanakl\u0131 tek yorum oldu\u011funu ileri s\u00fcrmek yanl\u0131\u015f olur.
[31] A.g.e., s. 88.
[32] G, ss. 331-332; Marx’\u0131n dolay\u0131mlama kavram\u0131n\u0131 ‘arac\u0131n\u0131n’ rol\u00fc ile ba\u011flant\u0131land\u0131rd\u0131\u011f\u0131 C, Vol. I, s. 744’e bak\u0131n\u0131z.
[33] J. J. O’Malley, R. W. Algozin, H. P. Kainz ve L. G. Rice (eds.) The Legacy of Hegel (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1973), s. 69.
[34] CW, Vol. 3, ss. 340d.
[35] CW, Vol. 5, s. 446d. Burada ve di\u011fer baz\u0131 yerlerde Marx sonraki Wittgenstein’i hat\u0131rlatan \u00e7ok sey s\u00f6yler. Uyar\u0131c\u0131 bir tart\u0131\u015fma i\u00e7in bak\u0131n\u0131z Ted Benton, ‘Wittgenstein and Marx’, Radical Philosophy (Spring 1976).
* Tanr\u0131’n\u0131n Isa’da v\u00fccut bulmas\u0131. (\u00c7evirenin notu)
[36] Marx i\u00e7in, onsekizinci ve ondokuzuncu y\u00fczy\u0131l filozoflar\u0131n\u0131n mekanik materyalizmi idealizme dayan\u0131r. Mekanik materyalizm ya hareketi a\u00e7\u0131klamak i\u00e7in Tanr\u0131’y\u0131 varsaymak ya da maddeyi yaln\u0131zca do\u011fada ideal olacak bi\u00e7imde tan\u0131mlamak zorundayd\u0131. Engels Do\u011fan\u0131n Diyalekti\u011fi’nde ‘Do\u011fan\u0131n mekanik kavran\u0131\u015f\u0131 \u00fczerine’ adl\u0131 Ek 1 B’de konuyu iyice a\u00e7\u0131klar. Colletti’ye kars\u0131 Engels maddeyi de\u011fil do\u011fay\u0131 diyalektik olarak de\u011ferlendirir. Onun diyalektik do\u011falc\u0131l\u0131\u011f\u0131 (materyalizmi de\u011fil), hi\u00e7 kusku\u015fuz, daha az itiraz edilebilir de\u011fildir.
[37] CW, Vol. 6, ss. 164,165. ‘Politik Ekonominin Metafizi\u011fi’ ba\u015fl\u0131kl\u0131 b\u00fct\u00fcn ikinci b\u00f6l\u00fcm ilgin\u00e7 bir okumaya yol a\u00e7ar. Marx i\u00e7in Hegel’in y\u00f6ntemi politik ve ahlaki teorisyenlerde de ortakt\u0131r; bak\u0131n\u0131z: CW, Vol. 5, s. 410.
[38] CW, Vol. 3, s. 333.
[39] A.g.e., s. 332.
* Paris’in Gizemleri (\u00c7evirenin notu)
[40] Engels benzer g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015ftedir; bak\u0131n\u0131z: SC, s. 381. Bu g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcn mant\u0131\u011f\u0131 Ernst Fischer, Art against Ideology (1961) ve T. Eagleton, Marxism and Literary Criticism (Methuen, London, 1976), ss. 47d ve 57d, tarafindan iyi ara\u015ft\u0131r\u0131lm\u0131\u015ft\u0131r.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

IVMarx, Hegel’in ele\u015ftirel-olmayan idealizminin diyalektik y\u00f6ntemini son derece zay\u0131flatt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrer. Marx’\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne g\u00f6re Sol Hegelciler diyalekti\u011fin var olan\u0131n rasyonelli\u011fini kabul ederken ayn\u0131 zamanda onun s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar\u0131n\u0131 ve eninde sonunda yerinin al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 tan\u0131mas\u0131 anlam\u0131nda ilke olarak devrimci bir y\u00f6ntem oldu\u011funu vurgulamakta hakl\u0131yd\u0131lar. Ancak, diyalekti\u011fin Hegel’in elinde ele\u015ftirel-olmayan ve pozitivist bir y\u00f6ntem haline geldi\u011fini g\u00f6remeyerek yan\u0131l\u0131yorlard\u0131. Marx, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[178],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-4788","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-marksizm"},"yoast_head":"\nMarx'a G\u00f6re Hegel'de Diyalektik (2) | Bhikhu Parekh - narteks.net<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"tr_TR\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Marx'a G\u00f6re Hegel'de Diyalektik (2) | Bhikhu Parekh\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"IVMarx, Hegel’in ele\u015ftirel-olmayan idealizminin diyalektik y\u00f6ntemini son derece zay\u0131flatt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrer. Marx’\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne g\u00f6re Sol Hegelciler diyalekti\u011fin var olan\u0131n rasyonelli\u011fini kabul ederken ayn\u0131 zamanda onun s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar\u0131n\u0131 ve eninde sonunda yerinin al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 tan\u0131mas\u0131 anlam\u0131nda ilke olarak devrimci bir y\u00f6ntem oldu\u011funu vurgulamakta hakl\u0131yd\u0131lar. Ancak, diyalekti\u011fin Hegel’in elinde ele\u015ftirel-olmayan ve pozitivist bir y\u00f6ntem haline geldi\u011fini g\u00f6remeyerek yan\u0131l\u0131yorlard\u0131. Marx, […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"narteks.net\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-11-24T08:47:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/www.futuristika.org\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/11\/karl_marx.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Tar\u0131k\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@narteks\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@narteks\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Yazan:\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Tar\u0131k\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Tahmini okuma s\u00fcresi\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"36 dakika\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Tar\u0131k\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/61f37d9834294b72d31d274e7ed79bca\"},\"headline\":\"Marx’a G\u00f6re Hegel’de Diyalektik (2) | Bhikhu Parekh\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-24T08:47:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/\"},\"wordCount\":7141,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.futuristika.org\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/11\/karl_marx.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Marksizm\"],\"inLanguage\":\"tr\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/\",\"name\":\"Marx'a G\u00f6re Hegel'de Diyalektik (2) | Bhikhu Parekh - narteks.net\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.futuristika.org\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/11\/karl_marx.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-11-24T08:47:42+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"tr\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"tr\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/www.futuristika.org\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/11\/karl_marx.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"http:\/\/www.futuristika.org\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/11\/karl_marx.jpg\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Anasayfa\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Marx’a G\u00f6re Hegel’de Diyalektik (2) | Bhikhu Parekh\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/\",\"name\":\"narteks.net\",\"description\":\"K\u00fclt\u00fcr Sanat Edebiyat Felsefe\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"K\u00fclt\u00fcr Sanat Edebiyat Felsefe\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"tr\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization\",\"name\":\"narteks.net\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"tr\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/narteks.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/narteks.png\",\"width\":300,\"height\":90,\"caption\":\"narteks.net\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/x.com\/narteks\",\"https:\/\/instagram.com\/narteksnet\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/61f37d9834294b72d31d274e7ed79bca\",\"name\":\"Tar\u0131k\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"tr\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50865afb55632c4ae467e0af0930f6510aa2297d8014be502a55b14f3b7550cf?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50865afb55632c4ae467e0af0930f6510aa2297d8014be502a55b14f3b7550cf?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Tar\u0131k\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\/\/narteks.net\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/author\/narbak\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Marx'a G\u00f6re Hegel'de Diyalektik (2) | Bhikhu Parekh - narteks.net","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/","og_locale":"tr_TR","og_type":"article","og_title":"Marx'a G\u00f6re Hegel'de Diyalektik (2) | Bhikhu Parekh","og_description":"IVMarx, Hegel’in ele\u015ftirel-olmayan idealizminin diyalektik y\u00f6ntemini son derece zay\u0131flatt\u0131\u011f\u0131n\u0131 ileri s\u00fcrer. Marx’\u0131n g\u00f6r\u00fc\u015f\u00fcne g\u00f6re Sol Hegelciler diyalekti\u011fin var olan\u0131n rasyonelli\u011fini kabul ederken ayn\u0131 zamanda onun s\u0131n\u0131rlamalar\u0131n\u0131 ve eninde sonunda yerinin al\u0131nmas\u0131n\u0131 tan\u0131mas\u0131 anlam\u0131nda ilke olarak devrimci bir y\u00f6ntem oldu\u011funu vurgulamakta hakl\u0131yd\u0131lar. Ancak, diyalekti\u011fin Hegel’in elinde ele\u015ftirel-olmayan ve pozitivist bir y\u00f6ntem haline geldi\u011fini g\u00f6remeyerek yan\u0131l\u0131yorlard\u0131. Marx, […]","og_url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/","og_site_name":"narteks.net","article_published_time":"2010-11-24T08:47:42+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/www.futuristika.org\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/11\/karl_marx.jpg","type":"","width":"","height":""}],"author":"Tar\u0131k","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@narteks","twitter_site":"@narteks","twitter_misc":{"Yazan:":"Tar\u0131k","Tahmini okuma s\u00fcresi":"36 dakika"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/"},"author":{"name":"Tar\u0131k","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/61f37d9834294b72d31d274e7ed79bca"},"headline":"Marx’a G\u00f6re Hegel’de Diyalektik (2) | Bhikhu Parekh","datePublished":"2010-11-24T08:47:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/"},"wordCount":7141,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/www.futuristika.org\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/11\/karl_marx.jpg","articleSection":["Marksizm"],"inLanguage":"tr","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/","url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/","name":"Marx'a G\u00f6re Hegel'de Diyalektik (2) | Bhikhu Parekh - narteks.net","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"http:\/\/www.futuristika.org\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/11\/karl_marx.jpg","datePublished":"2010-11-24T08:47:42+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"tr","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"tr","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/#primaryimage","url":"http:\/\/www.futuristika.org\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/11\/karl_marx.jpg","contentUrl":"http:\/\/www.futuristika.org\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2008\/11\/karl_marx.jpg"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/2010\/11\/24\/marxa-gore-hegelde-diyalektik-2-bhikhu-parekh\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Anasayfa","item":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Marx’a G\u00f6re Hegel’de Diyalektik (2) | Bhikhu Parekh"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#website","url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/","name":"narteks.net","description":"K\u00fclt\u00fcr Sanat Edebiyat Felsefe","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization"},"alternateName":"K\u00fclt\u00fcr Sanat Edebiyat Felsefe","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"tr"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#organization","name":"narteks.net","url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"tr","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/narteks.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/narteks.png","width":300,"height":90,"caption":"narteks.net"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/x.com\/narteks","https:\/\/instagram.com\/narteksnet"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/61f37d9834294b72d31d274e7ed79bca","name":"Tar\u0131k","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"tr","@id":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50865afb55632c4ae467e0af0930f6510aa2297d8014be502a55b14f3b7550cf?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50865afb55632c4ae467e0af0930f6510aa2297d8014be502a55b14f3b7550cf?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Tar\u0131k"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/narteks.net"],"url":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/author\/narbak\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4788","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4788"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4788\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4788"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4788"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/narteks.net\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4788"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}