World and Environment

In his contrast of Philosophical interpreting the world and Philosophical changing the world, Marx does not distinguish between the natural world and the social world.  Plainly, the change that he is exhorting is of the social world, but the world interpreted by at least some Philosophers, including that of the topic of his Dissertation, is the natural world.  The ambiguity is not peculiar to him--while Kant does contrast the world of Nature and the world of Freedom, both non-human and human influences are part of the former.  And, the ambiguity is not exclusive to the common use of 'world'--'environment' can be either natural or social in ordinary parlance.  Now, the precision of Kant's analysis reveals the ground of the ambiguity--a Subject that is an individual member of society.  But, in Evolutionism, the Subject is the Species, which entails that the natural world is the Environment that it inhabits, while the social world is an internal organization of it within that Environment.  The Evolutionist re-focus is instructive for Marxism--the Means of Production can be formulated in Evolutionist terms as an Adaptation-Of an Environment that determines the organization of the social world.  But it is also instructive regarding an implicit Marxist exhortation--for Philosophers to break from traditional Individualistic methodology, i. e. with foundations such as Cogito, I Will, or a Sense-Datum--and adopt a Collectivist perspective.  Such a break applies to Marx's own Dialectical methodology, according to which, some fragment of the Species, usually either an individual worker or a Class, is a given condition, and the Collective is merely an eventual destination.  In contrast, for Rousseau, the fragments are products of an original, sub-division--a first privatization of property, a thesis that is unavailable in Dialecticism.