This is the greatest group of intelectuals from the 20th century up to now who seriously thought and analyzed about our contemporary world. Much of their views have come to reality and are seen today after 60 years.
I prefer The Trotskyist lineage represented by David North, Nick Beams, Patrick Martin, Barry Grey, Wije Dias, Ulrich Rippert, David Walsh, Bill Van Auken, and many others, who daily analyze from a genuinely Marxist perspective the political events of the world in their writings for the World Socialist Web Site.
The difference is that The Frankfurt School is a Freudo Marxist project. They were not only marxists as they are usually referred to, but psychoananlysis played an equal weight on their work.
Thanks for sharing this. Each section has its own cache of insight. To comment on just one piece: I find the challenge Marcuse puts to us to imagine a world where human wealth and value is no longer a measure of alienated labor (time spent producing commodities for someone else) extremely thought-provoking. It healthily stretches our homo economicus brains to consider creativity and community as sources of motivation strong enough to replace the current profit-driven incentive system. And for good reason! This shift will radically alter how we relate to one another and ourselves. When we live "without fear, without being compelled to spend our entire adult existence in alienated performances" we will begin to see the benevolence in humanity manifest itself more fully.
If you truly hate quasi-religious pseudo-intellectuals, why aren’t you commenting on an Ayn Rand video. No other person in Western history has done more to undermine the discipline of philosophy. Shit, you can’t even call her much of empiricist because she never addressed questions like the Agrippan Trilemma or the closure principle, other than to say “A is A.” Or, to be more explicit, “A is whatever I say A is.”
How to liberate ourselves from the pernicious effect of ordinary language was the challenge Adorno faced. The main task of the 'catalyst' groups was to counteract the control of consciousness by the dominant power structure. Marcuse has in mind more than media propaganda. We are largely manufactured beings. The ideology of the state is enshrined in all its institutions, as Marx said. Even he did not recognise how a culture's beliefs, values, attitudes etc. are embedded in language itself.
I wouldn't disagree wtih any of this, but how is this related to the difficulty and obscurity of Adorno's prose, which is the issue I am addressing (in response to your initial posting)?
Magee is right to take the Frankfurt School to task for the difficulty of some of their texts. Especially Adorno. It's hard to tell what he's saying sometimes in Aesthetic Theory and Negative Dialectics, though Dialectic of Enlightenment and Minima Moralia were okay.
Yes, but what is Adorno up to writing in this obscure way? Adorno saw that a culture's ideology is embedded in its language. This is not obvious. Even a casual utterance about a cup of coffee is saturated with ideology, which you can see if you unpack the meaning of 'coffee', 'cup' etc. I use the term ideology, as Marx did, to include beliefs, values, attitudes etc. Adorno was trying not only to circumvent this but communicate with the authentic, socially unconditioned part of ourselves.
Histroy and Freedom is indeed an excellent series of lectures. I cannot vouch for the others, however. I disaggree that AT is Adorno's key text. It's Dialectic of Enlightenment, surely?
I did not give any arguments of my own because you didn't either. I simply critiqued your attempt at critique. Anyways, if you could provide me with where he attempts to 'promote socialism as paradise in religious sense' please let me know. And for the record, I am not completely devoted to the Frankfurt School at all - I find some of their positions to be questionable (such as Marcuse's Feminism). Good to hear that having people respond to you makes you feel validated.
for Adorno, even though he didn't think the working class could overthrow it, the main enemy was "exchange society". Anti-semitism, the culture industry, language, etc, are all manifestations of the identitarianism of late capitalism. He is a materialist, like Marx.
I studied under Marcuse at UCSD (1969-1973), and while I eventually morphed into a right-winger into Ayn Rand's Objectivism and Ron Paul's libertarianism, I still very much like Marcuse the man.
I think your comments are rife with extraneous assertions. Would you be willing to cite actual works by Marcuse where he claims, among other things, that 2+2=5? If you aren’t, you need to shut-up.
Watch the video at least, he mentions it somewhere. I don't have time to find it for you. In religious sense because it is based on faith - good feelings and not on reason. If you analyse why you don't like the feminism aspect you maybe find out the rest does not bare much value either. It amazes me every time how proponents of critical theory forget to apply it to their own conclusions.
All philosophy is based, to a certain extent, on “faith”-or what I would call conjecture. Different people are attracted to different subjects; but that doesn’t make them stupid or quasi-religious. More, Marx’s critique still holds today, as it based on a solid analyses and (yes) numbers.
@Israe5l Well any Marxist would say that of course not. Socialism is supposed to be the radical expansion of democracy into the everyday life, not just a formal legal form as it exists under capitalism
@TheFlanker35 Too much freedom may not be all that good. For example we are facing technology that gives us unbounded freedom. Its not the defense of freedom that we need, we need people to practice freedom. So we only need so much of freedom.
@DumblyBrilliant I was referring to you and your dad's phrase, which I find widely ignorant. On the other hand, even though I am by no means a Marxist, I think Marcuse was onto some pretty interesting ideas that need to be considered in our present situation in which it is evident that capitalism is deeply flawed.
There are battle-ax mothers, battle-ax sisters, battle-ax wives (and ex-wives) and battle-ax daughters, just as there are brutal husbands, degrading fathers, ignorant brothers, and foolish sons. So, there is no necessity to regarding these 'roles' as so special since they convey no important usefulness to others. Family is at best a last ditch line of defense against total social breakdown and chaotic genocide. There are much better forms of social organization where individuals can feel safe to adventure towards liberation from the degrading experiences of their 'socialization' and experiment with aesthetic forms of social life.
We have before us two choices: 1)everything popped into existence out of nothing with no cause no design and no reason. This is scientifically impossible. Or 2) there’s a Creator who designs with a cause for a reason. This is scientifically reasonable. No other choices. Choice 1 means everything you say, do and think mean nothing, so shut up and sit down! Choice #2 means you’ll be held accountable for all your thoughts, words and actions. To deny these choices implies that you’re delusional and if so, do not try to use reason and logic to explain your delusion.
To summarise: You deliver laughably weak nuggets of (mis/dis-)information using rhetoric that refers to 1984, suggesting that your knowledge of political philosophy extends no further than Orwell. You also dismiss what you are intellectually incapable of understanding as 'pseudo-intellectual babble'. You thus prove yourself incapable of proper discussion. Go home.
This is the greatest group of intelectuals from the 20th century up to now who seriously thought and analyzed about our contemporary world. Much of their views have come to reality and are seen today after 60 years.
I prefer The Trotskyist lineage represented by David North, Nick Beams, Patrick Martin, Barry Grey, Wije Dias, Ulrich Rippert, David Walsh, Bill Van Auken, and many others, who daily analyze from a genuinely Marxist perspective the political events of the world in their writings for the World Socialist Web Site.
The difference is that The Frankfurt School is a Freudo Marxist project. They were not only marxists as they are usually referred to, but psychoananlysis played an equal weight on their work.
As an atheist, I wish there to be a special place in hell for you and your kind.
for whom?
Juan Farad
For you.
Thanks for sharing this. Each section has its own cache of insight. To comment on just one piece: I find the challenge Marcuse puts to us to imagine a world where human wealth and value is no longer a measure of alienated labor (time spent producing commodities for someone else) extremely thought-provoking. It healthily stretches our homo economicus brains to consider creativity and community as sources of motivation strong enough to replace the current profit-driven incentive system. And for good reason! This shift will radically alter how we relate to one another and ourselves. When we live "without fear, without being compelled to spend our entire adult existence in alienated performances" we will begin to see the benevolence in humanity manifest itself more fully.
Marcuse Adorno and Horkheimer became the celebrity status they criticized.
If you truly hate quasi-religious pseudo-intellectuals, why aren’t you commenting on an Ayn Rand video. No other person in Western history has done more to undermine the discipline of philosophy. Shit, you can’t even call her much of empiricist because she never addressed questions like the Agrippan Trilemma or the closure principle, other than to say “A is A.” Or, to be more explicit, “A is whatever I say A is.”
@BroadswordTULL Happy to know I struck a chord. Feeling the heat?
What's the music at the end?
How to liberate ourselves from the pernicious effect of ordinary language was the challenge Adorno faced. The main task of the 'catalyst' groups was to counteract the control of consciousness by the dominant power structure. Marcuse has in mind more than media propaganda. We are largely manufactured beings. The ideology of the state is enshrined in all its institutions, as Marx said. Even he did not recognise how a culture's beliefs, values, attitudes etc. are embedded in language itself.
I wouldn't disagree wtih any of this, but how is this related to the difficulty and obscurity of Adorno's prose, which is the issue I am addressing (in response to your initial posting)?
Magee is right to take the Frankfurt School to task for the difficulty of some of their texts. Especially Adorno. It's hard to tell what he's saying sometimes in Aesthetic Theory and Negative Dialectics, though Dialectic of Enlightenment and Minima Moralia were okay.
@wahyubnindonesia Is this English?
Yes, but what is Adorno up to writing in this obscure way? Adorno saw that a culture's ideology is embedded in its language. This is not obvious. Even a casual utterance about a cup of coffee is saturated with ideology, which you can see if you unpack the meaning of 'coffee', 'cup' etc. I use the term ideology, as Marx did, to include beliefs, values, attitudes etc. Adorno was trying not only to circumvent this but communicate with the authentic, socially unconditioned part of ourselves.
Lol. How do you know? Did the voices tell you?
Histroy and Freedom is indeed an excellent series of lectures. I cannot vouch for the others, however. I disaggree that AT is Adorno's key text. It's Dialectic of Enlightenment, surely?
I did not give any arguments of my own because you didn't either. I simply critiqued your attempt at critique. Anyways, if you could provide me with where he attempts to 'promote socialism as paradise in religious sense' please let me know. And for the record, I am not completely devoted to the Frankfurt School at all - I find some of their positions to be questionable (such as Marcuse's Feminism). Good to hear that having people respond to you makes you feel validated.
I see the apple didn't land far from the tree
So, I got a question. Is capitalism necessary for democracy?
for Adorno, even though he didn't think the working class could overthrow it, the main enemy was "exchange society". Anti-semitism, the culture industry, language, etc, are all manifestations of the identitarianism of late capitalism. He is a materialist, like Marx.
I studied under Marcuse at UCSD (1969-1973), and while I eventually morphed into a right-winger into Ayn Rand's Objectivism and Ron Paul's libertarianism, I still very much like Marcuse the man.
@realitycheck888 Yes, reminds me of Cuddihy's' Ordel of Civility'!
I think your comments are rife with extraneous assertions. Would you be willing to cite actual works by Marcuse where he claims, among other things, that 2+2=5? If you aren’t, you need to shut-up.
After the overkill of Quine, a refreshing breathe of leftwing thought with Marcuse. Breathing time.
Watch the video at least, he mentions it somewhere. I don't have time to find it for you.
In religious sense because it is based on faith - good feelings and not on reason.
If you analyse why you don't like the feminism aspect you maybe find out the rest does not bare much value either.
It amazes me every time how proponents of critical theory forget to apply it to their own conclusions.
well, Marx's aim is more simple: to provide the working class with an analysis of the workings of capital and what is required to overthrow it.
All philosophy is based, to a certain extent, on “faith”-or what I would call conjecture. Different people are attracted to different subjects; but that doesn’t make them stupid or quasi-religious. More, Marx’s critique still holds today, as it based on a solid analyses and (yes) numbers.
@Israe5l Well any Marxist would say that of course not. Socialism is supposed to be the radical expansion of democracy into the everyday life, not just a formal legal form as it exists under capitalism
Is that what Jonathan Bowden taught you (who was financed by right-wing Jews) or did you figure that out yourself?
@TheFlanker35 Too much freedom may not be all that good. For example we are facing technology that gives us unbounded freedom. Its not the defense of freedom that we need, we need people to practice freedom. So we only need so much of freedom.
@DumblyBrilliant I was referring to you and your dad's phrase, which I find widely ignorant.
On the other hand, even though I am by no means a Marxist, I think Marcuse was onto some pretty interesting ideas that need to be considered in our present situation in which it is evident that capitalism is deeply flawed.
There are battle-ax mothers, battle-ax sisters, battle-ax wives (and ex-wives) and battle-ax daughters, just as there are brutal husbands, degrading fathers, ignorant brothers, and foolish sons. So, there is no necessity to regarding these 'roles' as so special since they convey no important usefulness to others. Family is at best a last ditch line of defense against total social breakdown and chaotic genocide. There are much better forms of social organization where individuals can feel safe to adventure towards liberation from the degrading experiences of their 'socialization' and experiment with aesthetic forms of social life.
@eltraficantedenubes
and spelling...ahemm.
@MikeCDawg Sure a Marxist will say so, but with the hind sight of history, not just the out come of communism but also the history of "money".
No common sense about how everything works
I wish guys like this were still around to publicly smack the daylights out of the paltry strawmen Jordan Peterson spreads around about their work.
Unreadableness hides the simplistic underlying plan. And that plan is...
We have before us two choices:
1)everything popped into existence out of nothing with no cause no design and no reason. This is scientifically impossible.
Or
2) there’s a Creator who designs with a cause for a reason. This is scientifically reasonable.
No other choices.
Choice 1 means everything you say, do and think mean nothing, so shut up and sit down!
Choice #2 means you’ll be held accountable for all your thoughts, words and actions.
To deny these choices implies that you’re delusional and if so, do not try to use reason and logic to explain your delusion.
That's nice.
people in hell are suffering to much to worry about anyone else there.
it is unnecessary, in my view
To summarise:
You deliver laughably weak nuggets of (mis/dis-)information using rhetoric that refers to 1984, suggesting that your knowledge of political philosophy extends no further than Orwell.
You also dismiss what you are intellectually incapable of understanding as 'pseudo-intellectual babble'.
You thus prove yourself incapable of proper discussion. Go home.