Rimarajaa’s Reviews > Intellectual and Manual Labor: A Critique of Epistemology > Status Update

Kant’s concern with a priori, the categorization of knowledge also more directly addresses one of the core claims of the book regarding abstract knowledge and its origins (again they claim that its due to exchange which- like- huh??)

Essentially the Kantian epistemological dualism of subject and object is more reflective of the distinction between mental and manual labor the author is trying to make. Hegel’s “absolute knowing” incorporates this dualism into a truth into a single truth that will ultimately be uncritical + will not reveal the materialist roots of the problem

-OH AND THAT APPARENTLY ABSTRACT THOUGHT AROSE FROM EXCHANGE
-Claims to place a line of differentiation between a class society and a classless society?
-Is there a reason that he compares Kants transcendental subject to the exchange abstraction- like genuinely what practical use does this serve- like yeh okay they are similar what difference does that make

Exchange abstraction as I understand it basically means that money functions as an abstraction of labor, equating diverse intellectual and manual work into value/ common measure/ price and it arises from the exchange itself Marx basically said the same thing in his explaination of the “money abstraction” but this author is saying its more accurate to say exchange- I guess

The book delineates its main objectives:
-understanding natural science from a historical materialist perspective
-understanding the origin of the separation of mental and manual labor (i.e. understanding hoe the exchange abstraction arose.

Mentioned Kant- don’t understand anything he’s talking about, never read Kant- the most I’ve done is talk on the phone about him briefly a couple weeks ago- feeling #dumb asf

We are so over