Mystical Angels

plz explain these 3 Marxian ideas. (try to explain at least one)?

No. 1. One must separate the ideas of those ruling for empirical reasons, under empirical conditions and as empirical individuals, from these actual rulers, and thus recognise the rule of ideas or illusions in history. No. 2. One must bring an order into this rule of ideas, prove a mystical connection among the successive ruling ideas, which is managed by understanding them as “acts of self-determination on the part of the concept” (this is possible because by virtue of their empirical basis these ideas are really connected with one another and because, conceived as mere ideas, they become self-distinctions, distinctions made by thought). No. 3. To remove the mystical appearance of this “self-determining concept” it is changed into a person – “Self-Consciousness” – or, to appear thoroughly materialistic, into a series of persons, who represent the “concept” in history, into the “thinkers,” the “philosophers,” the ideologists, who again are understood as the manufacturers of history, as the “council of guardians,” as the rulers. Thus the whole body of materialistic elements has been removed from history and now full rein can be given to the speculative steed.

Public Comments

1. 3. To simplify history, which according to Marx is really driven forward by material circumstances, it is rearranged into ideas and people having ideas.
2. I'll try No. 1: An illustration from contemporary history... George W. Bush: Prior to 9/11, he had the idea (empirically, but it was in fact an illusion) that the United States had a working satisfactory relationship with the rulers of Saudi Arabia, and through his father's relationship with the Bin Laden family there, that he (as actual ruler) could control, or at least predict the influence and potential actions of Osama Bin Laden. In actuality, he and his advisors (blinded by the illusion of their philosophical and monetary dominance) underestimated the growing influence of anti-West, anti-United States ideas in the Middle East and the will to demonstrate this. The Saudi Government (actual rulers) and the Bin Laden family turned a blind eye to the distribution of money accumulated there through Islamic charities ("those ruling for empirical reasons") which was sent to Osama Bin Laden, and on from him to terrorist cells. The result was Saudi-nationals being 18 of the 20 terrorists on the planes which attacked the World Trade Center on 9/11/01. George Bush, or rather his advisors (ruling for empirical reasons, viz., the weakness inherent in George Bush (empirical individual) being President), immediately realized the illusion on which their policies had been based. There had there been a devastating attack on the United States: an attack funded, and perhaps even sanctioned by some power based in Saudi Arabia. Immediately necessary was redressment of the United States' military presence in the Middle East theater (forbidden by treaty on Saudi soil). Both the oil and the strategic geographical position of the Saudi Arabian peninsula were and are absolute imperitives as far as the Untied States is concerned. 9/11 revealed that both those interests, and the United States' actual security were in immediate danger. With 9/11 came the new idea that the rulers of Saudi Arabia, through negligence or even complicity in the attack, could no longer be relied upon -- that our alliance which depended on them was in fact an illusion. In addition, a substantial US military force could not be sent toward Saudi Arabia to guarantee American interests, nor even a public statement made without "insulting" the Saudis (especially considering ever-widening politico-religious differences). The taking of such an action by the United States (sending troops and ordnance) without a good and "acceptable" reason for doing it could have even provoked an attempted realignment with another super-power by the Saudis -- or in a worst-case scenario -- WWIII, if, say, China or the Russians had either chosen to step in, perhaps under the aegis of a Saudi request for protection had the Untied States moved unilaterally in their direction. Hence the plan to invade Iraq was formulated. As long as George Bush and his administration maintained the ILLUSION to be interested only in Saddam Hussein and his WMD's, the United States could install a significant military force right into the theater, and risk little in terms of world opinion or loss of life compared to the possible alternatives. Thus, empirically, 9/11 changed everything. The illusion that we invaded Iraq because of Saddam Hussein was invented and maintained as the only means to a justifiable end, that is, the defense of our National Security and our imperitive global interests. As a result of the invasion, there was immediately created a new EMPIRICAL (though unvoiced) recognition by all parties of the United States' willingness to defend these interests at any cost, and of the absolute necessity of an internal restructuring of power and the influence of radical fundamentalist ideas within and emanating from Saudi Arabia. By "all parties", I mean the rulers of all the countries directly concerned. Only weeks after the invasion of Iraq, the Saudi government moved with force to quell extremists groups within its borders. Equally, the message became clear to those nations who have, or might have envisioned any ambition in the area, either as our allies or enemies. For example, Israel, faced with a growing sentiment of unified Islamic extremism, has long feared and has even taken radical steps against what it views as a threat of attack. I think it is beyond argument that if such an attack were to take place, or large-scale armed conflict to begin with its neighbors, Israel would not hesitate to use tactical nuclear weapons to defend themselves. Whether this is justified or not, it represents a clear empirical danger. One very beneficial side-effect of the United States substantial military presence in Iraq is that (especially considering actual extreme tensions and flux of power throughout the area) it greatly reduces the possibility of such a nuclear conflict in the forseeable future. The Israelis know, as do their potential adversaries, that the large conventional US military force now in Iraq would certainly be used in their favor. I hope all this leads toward what Marx was pointing to: the HISTORY of this is in great part the growth of outcomes planted by the IDEAS of the protagonists, and the resolution of conflicts between these ideas. Sometimes through violence -- or just as often through misplaced belief in the ILLUSION of philosophical dominance, we find the causes of historical events. More, in following Marx to his conclusion, it can be seen how ideas, or illusion (negligent or willful) can create empirical acts such as the 9/11 attack, or the invasion of Iraq which resulted directly from it. Both can be said to actually to have "ruled history". History which, it has been said, "is written by the winners". Thanks for the opportunity: I hope my illustration clarifies more than it confuses.