pattern is signified by the concepts of alienation and reification which they definition and it is inescapably earth-bound. The objectivity of the social employ to analyze capitalist society. At the same time, these concepts are subject situates it squarely within the real world. derived from reflection on the philosophical tradition and function in the Both common sense and the philosophical tradition would therefore ar- context of the authors' discussion of philosophical problems. This unity of gue that social subjects, should they exist at all, have no onto cultural, philosophical and political concerns is the distinctive trait of their cance. They are simply contingent assemblages of separate individuals with early method. political powers and rights, perhaps, but no fundamental reality. If they had They consider philosophy to be the discipline in which the operative ho- accepted this view, Marx and Lukacs would have made a contribution to izon of everyday life is raised to consciousness and subjected to rational political philosophy but beyond that they would have had to rely on one o criticism. On this basis they argue that the conceptual dilemmas or antino- another traditional philosophical approach. But neither Marx nor Lukacs did mies"of philosophy are symptomatic of deep contradictions in social the social subject must take over all the same Their most challenging conclusion is the demand for a"transcendence"of powers that individual subjects enjoyed in the old philosophy. Somehow philosophy as such through the practical resolution of these contradictions. reality is to be understood in essential relation to a subject situated within it This is perhaps the least well understood aspect of the early philosophy of and dependent on it. Is this not a vicious circle? Why choose such an improb- axis of Marx and Lukacs, and the study of it will be a major theme uniting able position? the various investigations making up this book. ill argue that they brave the paradoxes that result from that Despite their critical relation to the philosophical tradition, both the early of fidelity to the ambition of traditional philosophy to explain being starting Marx and Lukacs adhere to the fundamental Enlightenment values, freedom out from human being, for example, from innate ideas, sensation, or the forms and equality. They depart from the tradition in arguing that under capitalism, and categories of transcendental subjectivity. These traditional explanator these values cannot be achieved by isolated individuals subject to the laws of schemes depend on an individual contemplative subject. But Marx and Lukacs he market. This argument is the bridge between philosophy and social theory argue that the individual is derivative of one or another community in which for, once the agency of the individual is dismissed, subjectivity can no longer ily has its roots. The individual subject is an abstraction from be identified with a version of the Cartesian cogito or transcendental subject social being that grounds it. It cannot therefore resolve the ultimate problem Only a collective, social subject can realize the values of philosophy, but a of philosophy and the attempt to do so results in speculative myths. Only a social subject is an object in the world, a phenomenon among others. And social subject can provide the key to a resolution of the antinomies in practical Marx and Lukacs are still bound to the philosophical tradition by basic aspects life and philosophical theory. of its logical structure, which they rethink in social terms. The fact that Marx and Lukacs share this conclusion, is all the more re- This hybrid approach leads to complications. The abstract individual markable since Lukacs was unaware of the existence of Marx,'s Manuscrip ubject of pure knowledge transcends nature and need. The freedom of a when he wrote Hisrory and Class Consciousness. Lukacs found in The german social subject is limited by both these determinations. The transcendental Ideology and Capiral traces of Marx's early philosophy of praxis. This suggests subject is purified of its materiality and enabled thereby to know the truth and a theory of the continuity of Marx's intellectual development which I elabo- even,in an idealistic framework, to constitute reality. But such a transcend rate in a Lukacsian interpretation of the early Marx. Lukacs himself developed dence is unthinkable for a social group. A social subject cannot be purified of the most complex version of the philosophy of praxis. In his writings the materiality since it is only through material ties of one sort or another that it structure of this figure of thoughr becomes clear. The identification of such n form from out of the relations of the individuals who make it up. Abstra gures, which ultimately are defined in ideal-types such as"empiric from geography, race, language, and technical networks and nothing remains "idealism, "is an important contribution of philosophy to the history of ideas. to hold the individuals together in a group. But include those factors in its The articulation of its logic is essential to understanding the later trans-pattern is signified by the concepts of alienation and reification which they employ to analyze capitalist society. At the same time, these concepts are derived from reflection on the philosophical tradition and function in the context of the authors' discussion of philosophical problems. This unity of cultural, philosophical and political concerns is the distinctive trait of their early method. They consider philosophy to be the discipline in which the operative ho￾rizon of everyday life is raised to consciousness and subjected to rational criticism. On this basis they argue that the conceptual dilemmas or "antino￾mies" of philosophy are symptomatic of deep contradictions in social life. Their most challenging conclusion is the demand for a "transcendence" of philosophy as such through the practical resolution of these contradictions. This is perhaps the least well understood aspect of the early philosophy of praxis of Marx and Lukács, and the study of it will be a major theme uniting the various investigations making up this book. Despite their critical relation to the philosophical tradition, both the early Marx and Lukács adhere to the fundamental Enlightenment values, freedom and equality. They depart from the tradition in arguing that under capitalism, these values cannot be achieved by isolated individuals subject to the laws of the market. This argument is the bridge between philosophy and social theory for, once the agency of the individual is dismissed, subjectivity can no longer be identified with a version of the Cartesian cogito or transcendental subject. Only a collective, social subject can realize the values of philosophy, but a social subject is an object in the world, a phenomenon among others. And yet, Marx and Lukács are still bound to the philosophical tradition by basic aspects of its logical structure, which they rethink in social terms. This hybrid approach leads to complications. The abstract individual subject of pure knowledge transcends nature and need. The freedom of a social subject is limited by both these determinations. The transcendental subject is purified of its materiality and enabled thereby to know the truth and even, in an idealistic framework, to constitute reality. But such a transcen￾dence is unthinkable for a social group. A social subject cannot be purified of materiality since it is only through material ties of one sort or another that it can form from out of the relations of the individuals who make it up. Abstract from geography, race, language, and technical networks and nothing remains to hold the individuals together in a group. But include those factors in its definition and it is inescapably earth-bound. The objectivity of the social subject situates it squarely within the real world. Both common sense and the philosophical tradition would therefore ar￾gue that social subjects, should they exist at all, have no ontological signifi￾cance. They are simply contingent assemblages of separate individuals with political powers and rights, perhaps, but no fundamental reality. If they had accepted this view, Marx and Lukács would have made a contribution to political philosophy but beyond that they would have had to rely on one or another traditional philosophical approach. But neither Marx nor Lukács did accept this. Rather, they argue, the social subject must take over all the same powers that individual subjects enjoyed in the old philosophy. Somehow reality is to be understood in essential relation to a subject situated within it and dependent on it. Is this not a vicious circle? Why choose such an improb￾able position? I will argue that they brave the paradoxes that result from that move out of fidelity to the ambition of traditional philosophy to explain being starting out from human being, for example, from innate ideas, sensation, or the forms and categories of transcendental subjectivity. These traditional explanatory schemes depend on an individual contemplative subject. But Marx and Lukács argue that the individual is derivative of one or another community in which it necessarily has its roots. The individual subject is an abstraction from the social being that grounds it. It cannot therefore resolve the ultimate problems of philosophy and the attempt to do so results in speculative myths. Only a social subject can provide the key to a resolution of the antinomies in practical life and philosophical theory. The fact that Marx and Lukács share this conclusion, is all the more re￾markable since Lukács was unaware of the existence of Marx's Manuscripts when he wrote History and Class Consciousness. Lukács found in The German Ideology and Capital traces of Marx’s early philosophy of praxis. This suggests a theory of the continuity of Marx's intellectual development which I elabo￾rate in a Lukácsian interpretation of the early Marx. Lukács himself developed the most complex version of the philosophy of praxis. In his writings the structure of this figure of thought becomes clear. The identification of such figures, which ultimately are defined in ideal-types such as “empiricism” or “idealism,” is an important contribution of philosophy to the history of ideas. The articulation of its logic is essential to understanding the later trans-