Script & sources at: www.thenandnow.co/2023/06/24/adorno-and-horkheimer-dialectic-of-enlightenment-part-i/ ► Sign up for the newsletter to get concise digestible summaries: www.thenandnow.co/the-newsletter/ ► Why Support Then & Now? www.patreon.com/user/about?u=3517018
@monacoion7 ай бұрын
💭... Bless you AH Vision WATTS DATA ? Why Tears 😭 World Chaos idaZERO What HAPPENED to Dialectic of Enlightenment? WordsInLineSpaceAndTime impXYZ
@allypoum4 жыл бұрын
You do a great job of saving me from the hassle of reading dense theoretical books without the undesired side-effect of not having a clue what's in them or knowing why they are actually worth reading.
@kamoans3 жыл бұрын
"The undesirable side effect" of not learning from the sources and relying on somebody else's interpretation (with no name) is much greater.
@Azafell2 жыл бұрын
@@kamoans his interpretation is great and doesn't differ much from the average humanitarian/culturological academic`s analysis of adorno or horkheimer. however that said, of course you should ideally read the original sources to see and learn for yourself. introspective reading is crucial for philosophical texts and such video-essays are great as a sum up though.
@lost524 Жыл бұрын
my favorite type of internet idiot is the communist/socialist who really doesn’t want to read theory but also really wants to be a person who reads theory so they do everything they can to be that person but actually reading theory
@samsusaran0910 ай бұрын
@@lost524to be fair, I think that kind of internet idiot is better than the neo-N**i conspiracy theorists, and much better than incel gooners. I think this kind of internet idiot has the capability to one day live In the real world, and maybe, if they have time, they can read some theory. And I say this as someone who used Jordan Peterson™️ as my substitute for reading theory until I started to real Lacan (Et al.) myself, and debunked the bullshit JP told me, on my own terms.
@mikhailschipani20186 ай бұрын
This is why the left lacks nice things
@BlackTigerTrio4 жыл бұрын
blown away by this. amazing, how you manage to translate complex content like this into understandable language, without simplifying it too much and at the same time turning it into something thrilling, with great artistic choices of subtle visualisation and instrumentalisation. keep it up.
@randomspacething84554 жыл бұрын
Nothing to say, just engaging for the algorithm. You really deserve a boost in viewership.
Got the "1st" on a "Then&Now" video, that's true dedication from a fan!
@ThenNow4 жыл бұрын
Well deserved, James; Well deserved.
@auroraorha4 жыл бұрын
This channel deserves more viewers. I love the way your visual works with narration. 😘✌💜
@ThenNow4 жыл бұрын
Thank you! Much apprecited! Being some friends next time?!
@ignitionfrn22232 жыл бұрын
@@ThenNow Hang on a second: you sound quite familiar🤔 Timbah On Toast ?🤨
@EpicBeard8153 жыл бұрын
This is legit one of the best videos on KZfaq. I keep coming back to it constantly.
@warsameguhaadbahdoon64014 жыл бұрын
As an African student at a European graduate school, here is where I come for balanced and critical perspectives. Thanks.
@TheCodgod19963 жыл бұрын
too much white guilt at our universities. They also seem to be in the process of "diversifying" themselves. we just cant stop hating ourselves as a people.
@warsameguhaadbahdoon64013 жыл бұрын
@@TheCodgod1996what are you talking about? It is easy to judge other people I see - becouse its easy and satisfying. Lead your life, why care about others' life? Let him be guilty, why does it bother you? Stay in peace fellow human being.
@RRivesNYC4 жыл бұрын
You're getting really, really good at making these. Technically, this one is spot on; the music is great, your VO is excellent, and the visuals are quite compelling. I'm learning a lot here, thank you!
@ewfq24 жыл бұрын
You are so so so good and under appreciated. Thank you for your insightful, well-produced and videos / perspectives.
@ThenNow4 жыл бұрын
Thank you! Really nice to get comments like this, glad you enjoy!
@jakecarlo9950 Жыл бұрын
I wanted to just say again how inspiring I find this video now on a second viewing. I like many others am frustrated and occasionally, I'll admit, disgusted by Adorno's abstruseness, although I understand it's part of the project (well I hope to heaven it is anyway). But the ideas as you've articulated them are so important for us right now today, that to deliver a gentle escort into them is really a public service, and we thank you.
@edwardbackman7444 жыл бұрын
Excellent content as always, I liked how the track had a crescendo when you introduced totalitarianism
@ThenNow4 жыл бұрын
Thank you! Glad you noticed :)
@allypoum4 жыл бұрын
I liked (and noticed) that too. Excellent work.
@nomissimo3 жыл бұрын
Keep in mind that totalitarianism is not a term that Adorno is using. He lays out his concept of totality which is something quite different. It‘s not a political term at all.
@hugosetiawan89284 жыл бұрын
How are you still having so little views and so little subs??!! This channel is gold for philosophy learning and should be more publicised! You are a great teacher
@zarathustra87894 жыл бұрын
Yeaaaah mate, gimme some of that spicy enlightenment dialectic, love your work!
@ThenNow4 жыл бұрын
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed th spice :)
@michaelwu76784 жыл бұрын
The works of Andrei Tarkovsky will save us!
@zarathustra87894 жыл бұрын
Michael Wu May Andrei be with you, my friend.
@Pihasanddunes14 жыл бұрын
Reminds me, it is time for me to watch 'Mirror' again. Then 'Stalker,' then...
@steveabril2 жыл бұрын
Listen carefully and will conclude that you cannot use the word enlightenment to describe dialectic so your “spicy “ is bland.
@sirazpatel22874 жыл бұрын
Thank you for making elusive concepts and theories accessible and compelling.
@keyboardcorrector23404 жыл бұрын
Well done on setting up the atmosphere for this one.
@gabrielfrostbrand27544 жыл бұрын
The tragic of this dialectic of the enlightenment (as depicted) is that it through confining critical thought to instrumental reason it condems it to dissolve itself.
@feveredmystic4 жыл бұрын
Always excited for your new videos, this one is excellent as always. Thank you for the hard work you put into these!
@ThenNow4 жыл бұрын
Thank you, Zack! It's much appreciated. You're not the director, I presume?!
@feveredmystic4 жыл бұрын
@@ThenNow Nope, just the same name :)
@cavedon.felipe4 жыл бұрын
What an incredible video. Thank you, thank you very much. Your channel is a gift to the internet!
@aneekdas54703 жыл бұрын
This video was awesome. The timing , the clips, music, the whole content, everything was just perfect.
@georgeking66932 жыл бұрын
Excellent video and thank you for making this! Currently reading this book in my Continental Epistemology class and it is by far the most difficult book I have ever read (for those interested I think this is mainly due to the fragmented nature of the book). This video really helped solidify some of the ideas presented by H and A.
@msmelanie.4 жыл бұрын
Thanks so much for this one, perfect timing!
@spiceaddic93004 жыл бұрын
Lol I was starting to look into the frankfurt school as well!
@ThenNow4 жыл бұрын
I timed it just for you!
@CandidSailor2 ай бұрын
My grandmother survived the holocaust in Romania by hiding in a church attic for two years. Her family knew it was the only place they wouldn't check. In that time, all they had to survive on were nested birds and rainwater.
@keeperofthecheese4 жыл бұрын
I like how Then and Now have continued on with the work left wanting by the school of life, which went downhill after the philosophy series ended and they started making subjective videos about emotions.
@hansmuller43384 жыл бұрын
you did not understand shit, did you?
@thelakeman25384 жыл бұрын
You didn't watch the video or you have a severe case of confirmation bias and just plain rejection of everything being told, like I don't agree with a lot of stuff being said but I can at least see why it has been asserted and all of this is an interesting thought provoking concept to me. Or in other words get lost to your little bubble, if you don't want your views to be challenged
@stevenf59023 жыл бұрын
Bro... School of Life is basically the watered down sparknotes of KZfaq... They do the most general analysis possible... This channel is solid though.
@lis41502 жыл бұрын
This was an experience. Loved everything about it. This is how it should be done!
@BangThaBazie4 жыл бұрын
If you ask me, these guys offer a perspective which, better than any other, delivers context to the events of the 20th century that allows us to make sense of it all. I don't think you can understand modernity, WW2, liberalism, neoliberalism and most currently the nationalist backlash against globalization and multiculturalism, without the perspective of critical theory.
@andricic9949 ай бұрын
We all can be very thankful for the cultural industry that gives us the opportunity to watch a couple of minutes and having the feeling of already grasping the whole sense of a book. You did really a hell good of a job in giving a unbelievably dense yet enjoyable summary. On this basis we could ask ourself whether it's a sign of failure when these thoughts become just the same kind of cultural product and KZfaq entertainment as everything else. Or is this its own confirmation. ... And what else should we do trying to engage in this "critical thinking" if not producing right this kind of videos.
@devonashwa7977 Жыл бұрын
Bro that theory of enlightenment by kant is fuking all encompassing no wonder he is the father of philosophy he controls everyone’s thoughts today
@osmankaandemirbas11094 жыл бұрын
I LOVE THIS CHANNEL
@eggplant199415 күн бұрын
“Huxley doesn’t read German, and Joyce is dead” what a mic drop of a line
@youtubeisevil4 ай бұрын
I never hear Adorno and Horkheimer mentioned separately, I hope they were best friends
@Theorychad993 жыл бұрын
This is still one of my Favourite videos from your channel. I think there are a few channels that try to entirely copy your aesthetic and the type of topics you discuss. But they don't even come close to your level of quality content wise.
@adamjefford84893 жыл бұрын
Beautiful visuals. I felt transported while learning engaging ideas that will continue to sit with me. Thank you for making this!
@ArdentAvow4 жыл бұрын
I want to comment on the commenters. Thank you all for existing. I don't feel alone.
@googleguy-ft8xh3 жыл бұрын
Currently reading this book, this is an excellent primer to go back to! It’s full of some awesome quotes, my favourite so far has to be these two: “Human beings purchase power with estrangement from that over which it is exerted.” “The distance of subject from object, the presupposition of abstraction, is founded on the distance from things which the ruler attains by means of the ruled.” Contradictory, yet complementary. Love those crazy frankfurters.
@faadbadir68193 жыл бұрын
Since we're here, shall we get one about the Theory of Communicative Action perhaps? Big fan btw, love your work! XD
@tylertron4 күн бұрын
Interesting that the two types of dialectic Adorno and Horkheimer point out are very similar to Ian McGilchrist's understanding of the functions of the left and right brain.
@hammadraza10004 жыл бұрын
Kept listening for three to four times Great as always Looking forward for more videos
@redpalmss Жыл бұрын
What did you get from this
@lsobrien4 жыл бұрын
This is perfect, came at just the right time for me too. Great work.
@sultanahmed52803 жыл бұрын
This is an amazing introduction to the dialectics of enlightenment. Thank you :)
@SevenStarlitLakes4 жыл бұрын
Thank you for this informative video - I thoroughly enjoy all of the videos you put out. Thank you for your passion and hard work.
@ThenNow4 жыл бұрын
Thank you! Really glad you've enjoyed :)
@AmatuerAstronomer20144 жыл бұрын
Enjoying the background videos and music on this one. Good stuff
@IskHope4 жыл бұрын
Truely amazing as alway. I can't wait for your next video.
@ThenNow4 жыл бұрын
Thank you :) It will be part two of this
@williampaulbeaugruendler79012 жыл бұрын
The dark side of reason is Original Sin. The evidence of man's depravity and lack of good will permeates history.
@TheMightyWalk11 ай бұрын
“Good is a point of view”
@ananyo_kazi4 жыл бұрын
I think it's important to refer to Wittgenstein's critique of Frazer's Golden Bough. Frazer (just like Adorno and Horkheimer here) reads myth and magic as flawed use of reason to form an utilitarian understanding of the world, and Wittgenstein completely rejects this reading. Instead he views humans as an inescapably "ritualizing species", whereby they engage in rituals in response to emotional demands. For example, take the ritual act of piercing an image of your enemy with your spear before war -- a practice we can imagine to be prevalent among some primitive men. Also consider the act of kissing an image of your lover, which we still do. Is there any significant difference between these two? Why assume that the primitive men were doing that because they expected that to bring good luck in war? He also writes: "Simple though it may sound: The difference between magic and science can be expressed in the way that there is progress in science, but not in magic. Magic possesses no direction of development internal to itself."
@johnarbuckle26194 жыл бұрын
Magnificent, as usual.
@MyDenis08 ай бұрын
what i find most tragic is that today we are erasing the human experience, we are becoming more and more animalistic in a total denial of culture. We can fall back in the old traps that freed the enlightened man.
@dirkxyz3 жыл бұрын
this helped me so much in understanding - thanks!
@Hephaestikon3 жыл бұрын
An ad every 4 minutes doesn't make this a particularly enlightening video... I get one or two at the beginning, but with ads constantly interrupting my experience... yeah.
@sebastiaankampers66514 жыл бұрын
I dont like how reasoning and observation seem to be like two interlocked things in the theory of Adorno and horkheimer. I think that its this knitting together of observation and reason what makes modernity ( enlightment ). While observation ( science ) in its purest form has no meaning. And reasoning is just an other mode of being just like breathing, feeling, remembering, sleeping. Observing, cause it can shift focus and therefor our sense of time, together that it can be inwardly, outwardly and even interpersonal, it must be more than just a tool of instrumental reason. It is what socrates and kierkengaard refer to as the sacred of the individual.
@ThenNow4 жыл бұрын
Yes, I think this is a decent critique. Contra with Hume this line of argument might make an interesting video
@sebastiaankampers66514 жыл бұрын
Then & Now I am quite flattered , I have been wanting to respond for a week, but didnt have any clear purpose, also because you could have been responding ironically. Never the less I have been doing some research on modernity and Kierkegaard and the question arises. Why Kierkegaard is categorized as an existentialist ? Or should I say, ought to be categorized as an existentialist ? The only thing he does is aknowdlege there existence as far as I am aware.
@fiazmultani3 жыл бұрын
The baby boomers turned to religion after having experienced the scientific revolution. In contemporary times, we find that a significant percentage of people turn to religion and do so without compulsion ( absence of authority or a central figure). Further, current discourse has resulted in an unhospitable environment for religious people, yet many continue to hold religion sacred. Sebastiaan does this fit into what you are saying?
@kyler44542 жыл бұрын
Incredible video. Wonderfully dense, yet approachable. Subbing for sure!
@marklouielugue32294 жыл бұрын
Can't wait for the next parts!
@dialecticalveganegoist17214 жыл бұрын
Loved this! The effort you put in your video's man!
@thisaccountisdead90604 жыл бұрын
I wonder what they would've made of Michael Jackson's 'Moonwalk'? The illusion is apparently all created in how you kick your foot back (onto your toes) to give the appareance of pushing off that foot, when in fact all the push is coming from the other foot - I guess because we rationalise this is how people walk, we can't help but think that the ground must be moving relative to the moonwalker to send them backwards? Three main concepts have helped me understand the general criticism they have; 'backwards bullsh*t', 'Matrix organisations' and 'qualities vs functions': - - 'Backswards Bullsh*t'; A design tool called 'reverse engineering' is used to evaluate products - the idea is that by analysising the product, it is then possible to uncover the reasons for it's creation. It is a bit like a detective story - working back to a motive based on the clues the product gives a way (like a swastika imprinted onto what would otherwise be assumed to be a water pump from a fire engine, but is in fact a fuel pump for a V-2). In the common sense design process the realisation of a product starts with the 'customer need' - a customer wants something, a solution is engineered and created, then the customer buys that product. 'Backwards Bullsh*t' is the reverse of this process - effectively telling the customer what they should have. It is like applying 'reverse engineering' before a product even exists yet. A clear example of this in action is the flammable cladding used on the Grenfell Tower - which resulted in a fire that killed many people... the 'profit motive' dictated that the residents should live in a death trap, which is clear not what they would've wanted. - 'Matrix organisations' are perhaps a way or redressing the balance here? Such organisations have been around now for decades, and they essentially serve to ensure product quality. In a tradtional 'top down' company structure, you have the CEO at the top, followed by various department heads, and then all their employees - this structure is in very much danger of creating a 'Backwards Bullsh*t' approach I described above. In Matrix organistions however, a product line manager is assigned to ensuring product quality. And rather than each employee just having a department boss (like a HR or Finance boss). They also have a boss in the form of the product line manager - so effectively each employee has TWO bosses with competing interests (one working in the interests of preserving the 'backwards bullsh*t' structures of the company, while the other is effectively a representative of the customer needs of those who will eventually buy the product... How this works in the banking world I am not sure though?). Such matrix stuctures have been described as 'anarchist' due to how they challenge hierarchies. 'Qualities vs Functions'; the 'Top Down' structures (the 'backwards bullsh*t') can be described as representative of 'fucntions' (roles, commands, why?s). While the other component of a matrix structure (perhaps conceptualised as 'horizontal' due to it's resistence to heirarchies) is mainly concerned with 'quality' (people, material needs, how?s). It makes you wonder if though politicians should really be serving as the 'horizontal' influence rather than the 'Top Down' role they appear to predominantly play - if they are afterall representing the interests of 'the people'? maybe there is also an argument for greater public involvement in companies - to represent their own interests rather than a 'pruduct line manager' representing their interests for them (who isn't even elected?). Or if maybe workers should take over the companies themselves if they are the ones predominantly buying the products they make (ahem, alienation)? The existentialist Gabriel Marcel apparently has a good take with his 'functions vs the ontological mystery'. Where he analyses in two parts - functions and qualities - an then combines them together. I guess he is somewhere between a modernist and a postmodernist - critical of the modern world, but also realising that the modern world plays an important role in the technologies we use to support our technologically advanced way of life (I think? - I would have to look into Gabriel Marcel in more depth). Sorry for the long comment.
@squatch5454 жыл бұрын
I just accidentally poured Jalapena pepper juice on my testicles.
@markofsaltburn4 жыл бұрын
Similarly, I now have a mango in my anus after falling over in a funny way.
@tomchan1562 жыл бұрын
So we’ll-edited! Looking forward for more
@puneetrepalle33464 жыл бұрын
the music, you are giving me goosebumps
@johngoldsworthy71354 жыл бұрын
This is amazing work. Thanks.
@sezlonk6 ай бұрын
i cannot thank enough for this video! i wish i could buy the person behind it a beer :)
@sezlonk6 ай бұрын
oh wait, i can! :DD (a $5 beer though, sorry about that! I'm a grad student with a massive loan)
@Atipaj4 жыл бұрын
Btw, I still love your videos! Keep up the good work! Looking forward to part 2
@TheLifeGiver4 жыл бұрын
A masterpiece of a video
@thenowchurch64194 жыл бұрын
Please correct me if I am wrong but it seems to me that Horkheimer and Adorno failed to grasp a critical point. They grasped the following somewhat.: 1. The Enlightenment's main thrust was not just how civilized man could be free from superstition and the Church, but the freeing of the individual from all forms of conformist tyranny. 2. Totalitarian tyranny results from finding a seemingly workable solution to a specific problem in a specific time and context and then taking it to be the absolute answer for all time. This is why Hegel in his most brilliant phase, refused to admit of any well defined final system for Utopia, but only an ever continuing dynamic of self correction. Just as humans needed to be free of the tyranny of religion, we need to be free of the tyranny of scientific positivism/materialism. What I think they missed was that we must return to spirituality, myth and aesthetics, but as individuals, not dictated to by any church, institution, government or cult. This must be done in a balanced way, not totally rejecting scientific reason. Freedom of Thought and Speech must be preserved for this.
@dianavprakash4 жыл бұрын
Such beautiful narration. Beautiful voice! 😍
@pepemetzgermeister4 жыл бұрын
In Quetzal we (must) trust.
@wp60074 жыл бұрын
Hope this doesn't get demonitized. Btw I need to rewatch your deleuze video for the third time, because I don't think I get it.
@jayaramj96304 жыл бұрын
Great work! 6:43 compromises or comprises?
@omara6292 Жыл бұрын
Critical theory is a perfect example of the dangers of idealism, collectivism, and statism. It criticizes totalitarianism but is totalitarian itself.
@LesterBrunt Жыл бұрын
How so?
@qvidtvm-s5h4 жыл бұрын
An image request! : which is the oil painting study you use immediately before the Rembrandt? It sort of looks like an oil study of Michelangelo’s last judgement, but it seems different. The title of this beautiful work would be greatly appreciated. Thank you so much for this stunning video.
@leonweis31594 жыл бұрын
Brilliant. I should also try to make videos in this style.
@lucadelfante84543 жыл бұрын
thanks for the help. I read this book completely, and have to read it again...but then I would prefer to find some helps in that re-reading/Studying, then thanks a lot
@jefmar434 жыл бұрын
6:51 : not «compromises» (speaker), but «comprises» which means «includes», something entirely different.
@ZOGGYDOGGY Жыл бұрын
We should socially own and democratically manage the wealth we produce and that which lies in natural resources so that we can have the power to distribute it on the basis of need and live in harmony with the Earth. We should, but we don't. The wealth we produce does not belong to us. We give it up to capitalists. The wealth, what we perceive as being useful to us becomes a commodity called capital. Wage-labour reproduces the social relation Marx called Capital. The dialectic of Capital is anchored within a psycho-social dynamic of sado-masochism, justified in our minds as being the only realistic way to achieve the best of all possible worlds. Thus, the subject/object relation is reversed in everyday life. Wage-slavery becomes freedom, the freedom of one to dominate the other in the pursuit of happiness under the class domination of the few over the many. The most important issue, the issue of survival, is being treated as if Godot will come to save us. Nothing can be done by the immense majority of humanity while the means of producing wealth are not under common ownership and democratic control. Only the few who do own and control them have the power to stop greenhouse gas emissions and guess what folks--they aren't going to do it. The Market is us. We create it. It is not a god which will save us. Only we can save ourselves from the coming waves of ecocide. What is the definition of the term 'will to power' as used by philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche? What are some examples of it? Profile photo for Jennifer Armstrong Jennifer Armstrong studied Nietzsche since 199637m Very good question! in his four posthumously published volumes, Nietzsche sets up several outlines as to how some larger chunks of society express themselves in terms of art, politics and social attitudes. He also gives them an outline to modernize their ideas along lines that are no longer theological. That is, he lays out a blueprint for the “modern soul” to express their natures in a manner that is no longer morally squeamish. The main idea here is to see human relations in the terms he coined, “will to power”, rather than in terms of some kind of mysterious agenda that would require us to morally perfect ourselves (in other words instead of implicit and explicit theological ideologies). His conflict with the relatively prevailing theological perspective of his time was in the idea that we are not supposed to improve ourselves, because everything that exists has a measure of power that is unchanging, and that we remain, in this sense, true to ourselves despite many cycles of growth and destruction. We are what we are, moving toward a direction that is driven by an underlying agenda that we all have, toward development (increasing our power, not increasing our morality or our “knowledge”). But this growth spurt that we all have a drive to embrace is no more and no less than the quantum of power already within us. (In other words, we merely actualize what is already “there” in its seed form, through seeking our own expansion and design to master what is weaker.) Now the currently controversial or despised term “weakness” is, in this case, very much a relative term, based in the notion of an underlying sense that we are constantly on the move and trying to master ourselves, and new situations, in order to improve. But there is also an understanding here that human hierarchies implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) are built on the notion that those who gain mastery will in turn dominate those who do not do so. A point to bear in mind here is that Nietzsche does express a certain revulsion toward a very direct form of “will to power”. He despises militarism and actual physical dominance, but nonetheless he wants to see those who are actually psychologically astute (because of self-mastery) come into a position of obtaining actual social power. It is to this end that he writes in ways that engage with many social perspectives (and sometimes promulgate them), because he wants to find a way through the forest of modern styles of thinking, to the point that “the higher man” will earn his role and place in a more natural style of society. In all I think Nietzsche finds (as I do) that the “higher man” - one who has more complexity and drive to create “higher culture” is the meat in the sandwich between the earnestly pious masses (who are not so innocent at all in their piety, as they seek scapegoats) and those who employ power crudely and mechanistically (like the bourgeois and the nationalists). In the four volumes, which involve a multidimensional and multifaceted look at how “modern” society is shaping up to be, Nietzsche’s main concern is the suffering of the “higher man” and how it might be vindicated. Aphorism 79 from MINIMA MORALIA Intellectus sacrificium intellectus. [Latin: Intellectuals sacrifice to intellectuals]. To presume that thinking would profit from the decline of the emotions through increasing objectivity, or that it would remain indifferent to such, is itself an expression of the process of dumbing down. The social division of labor recoils on human beings, however much the former may facilitate the accomplishments required of the latter. The faculties, which develop through reciprocal effect, shrivel once when they are torn from each other. Nietzsche’s aphorism, “The degree and kind of sexuality of human beings reaches into the furthest peak of their Spirit [Geistes]” strikes at more than just a psychological state of affairs. Because even the most distant objectifications of thought are nourished by the drives, to destroy the latter is to destroy the former’s own condition. Isn’t memory inseparable from the love, which wants to preserve, what nevertheless passes away? Doesn’t every impulse of the imagination arise from the wish, which transcends the existent in all fidelity, by displacing its elements? Indeed isn’t the simplest perception modeled on the fear of what is perceived, or the desire for such? It is true that the objective meaning of cognitions has, with the objectification of the world, separated itself ever further from the basis of the drives; it is true that cognition fails, where its objectified achievement remains under the baleful spell of the wishes. However if the drives are not at the same time sublated in the thought, which escapes such a baleful spell, then there can be no cognition anymore, and the thought which kills the wish, its father, will be overtaken by the revenge of stupidity. Memory is tabooed as uncalculable, unreliable, irrational. The intellectual asthma which results from this, which culminates in the breakdown of the historical dimension of consciousness, immediately debases the synthetic apperception which, according to Kant, is not to be separated from the “reproduction in the imagination,” from commemoration. Imagination, today attributed to the realm of the unconscious and defamed in cognition as a childish, injudicious rudiment, creates alone that indispensable relation between objects, out of which all judgment originates: if it is driven out, then the judgment, the actual act of cognition, is exorcised as well. The castration of perception, however, by a controlling authority, which refuses it any desiring anticipation, thereby compels it into the schema of the powerless repetition of what is already familiar. That nothing more is actually allowed to be seen, amounts to the sacrifice of the intellect. Just as, under the unrestrained primacy of the production process, the wherefore of reason disappears, until it degenerates into the fetishism of itself and of externalized power, so too does it reduce itself down to an instrument and comes to resemble its functionaries, whose thought-apparatus only serves the purpose, of hindering thought. Once the final emotional trace is effaced, what solely remains of thinking is absolute tautology. The utterly pure reason of those who have completely divested themself of the capacity “to imagine an object even without its presence,” converges with pure unconsciousness, with idiocy in the most literal sense, for measured by the overweening realistic ideal of a category-free actuality, every cognition is false, and true only if the question of true or false is inapplicable. That this is a question of wide-ranging tendencies, is evident at every step of the scientific enterprise, which is on the point of subjugating the rest of the world, like so many defenseless ruins.
@Vladeeer4 жыл бұрын
I bet the 2K views are from 200 people, I know I did re-watched this video like 5 times already
@ryandudley36164 жыл бұрын
This is honestly amazing. Thank you so much.
@jennawaldo19923 жыл бұрын
Very helpful, thanks so much for making this.
@jakecarlo9950 Жыл бұрын
Outstanding. Thank you.
@thekfox13 жыл бұрын
So what would the world look like if we individually lived beyond reason and fact?
@dr.mikeybee3 ай бұрын
"Do what thou whilst" -- The Grand Idiot Aleister Crowley "Justice is the interest of the stronger." -- The Lesser Idiot Thrasymachus. "Wherever I go in my mind, I meet Plato coming back." -- Scott Buchanan.
@el61784 жыл бұрын
I wonder if the 'input' from others, lost in self preservation as we are, can be anything other than an attack.
@luisasouza54723 жыл бұрын
Great content as always!
@blondexoxo5023 Жыл бұрын
Great video!
@dootybootyfrooty4 жыл бұрын
Excellent vids as always
@LogicGated Жыл бұрын
Needed this video after attempting to read the book lol
@TheZairae4 жыл бұрын
This is incredible. Wow.
@avn40944 жыл бұрын
Great work...
@ThePATOLOVER4 жыл бұрын
Amazing work !
@adamkhan16873 жыл бұрын
This was excellent
@sezlonk6 ай бұрын
Thanks!
@michigandersea34852 жыл бұрын
Maybe Adorno and Horkheimer would be happy that philosophers such as Quine essentially used positivism's own principles to falsify its pretentions to universality. The authoritarianism of what is characterized here as the Enlightenment can no longer hold
@davidshelow88694 жыл бұрын
Homer quote at 10:55: can you provide the attribution? Iliad or Odyssey? and who is speaking?
@bobthesecond73763 жыл бұрын
David Shelow the words of Hector, book 6 of the Iliad, to his wife Andromache when they meet temporarily at the gates of Troy.
@jackdodd64284 жыл бұрын
HI guys, what is the video clip used at 8:44? looks familiar but cannot remember for the life of me.
@jonahpaterson9331 Жыл бұрын
Random question but what is the font used at 2:10 for the title card? Thanks.
@NathanDudani3 жыл бұрын
This is one hell of an argument against empiricism then too
@TheMightyWalk11 ай бұрын
If you’re not smart yes
@johnchoi4248 Жыл бұрын
Why Adorno and Horkheimer asked is mankind instead of entering into a truly human condition, sinking into a new kind of barbarism. How has the Enlightenment gone wrong and why with all of our scientific progress secularism, (which means the belief that religion should not be involved with the ordinary social and political activities of a country), an emphasis on human rights. Have we just emerged out of decades of catastrophic murder and war. Their answer the reason itself has a dark side, enlightenment man's use of his own reason was meant to be the antidote to myth, to religion, to unjust Authority phenomena that men followed blindly, but for Adorno and Horkheimer myth is already enlightenment and enlightenment reverts to mythology, What does this mean? According to James Bradley, for Adorno and Horkheimer, they see enlightenment as subject throughout history to a dialectic, wherein it all too easily gives itself an absolute status over and against its objects, thereby constantly collapsing into new forms of the very conditions of primeval repression, which had earlier set height to overcome. I think we can best understand their claim by looking at it, though, thematically through a number of concepts.
@johnchoi4248 Жыл бұрын
Domination First is domination, we should think of a dialectical relationship between enlightenment the use of our own reason and domination. So, what is domination? They say domination is, in effect, whenever the individuals goals and purposes and the means of striving for and attaining them, are prescribed to him and performed by him. Domination can be exercised by men by nature, by things, it can also be internal, exercised by the individual on himself and appear in the form of autonomy. Mythology in the form of say Christian religion might be seen as a form of domination. A flood - might be seen as a form of domination or a political system. Some might say that the Christian doctrine is more of a guidebook than a number of rules that are meant to dominate you, either ways prescribed to you is a correct way of doing something that you're meant to conform to. This is what they mean by domination, the book might be thought of as a history of domination, of how enlightenment becomes domination.
@johnchoi4248 Жыл бұрын
Enlightenment Enlightenment meant installing men as their own masters, Kant wrote in 1784, five years before the French Revolution and potentially years zero (all culture and traditions within a society must be completely destroyed or discarded and that a new revolutionary culture must replace it starting from scratch) of the Enlightenment that Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one's understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when it causes lies not in lack of understanding but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. [Sapere Aude!] means dare to know! “Have courage to use your own understanding that is the motto of the Enlightenment. self-imposed: decided by yourself, without being influenced or ordered by other people Enlightenment then meant dispelling myths and superstition, unjust laws laid down by corrupt men, using God as their justification, enlightenment meant removing each man's blindfold, encouraging him to use his own rational mind. Kant argued that men had an innate capability for reason, but what is reason? If men are individuals, is each man's reason different, Or do we all have the possibility to understand a shared reason. Is there a universal transcendental homogeneous reason, that's greater than any one man, i.e. the rules of mathematics physics and physiology. These aren't individual or they're universal, undeniable for Kant and Hegel, men had the faculties to be reasonable to think logically, but reason was larger than any single man, it was the unity of all logic, all nature in a systematization, which is a single governing principle as a schema, a blueprint. For Hegel, we would gradually work towards this and human reason would synthesize. As Hegel saw if you had individual men and universal reason, this would lead to a dialectic, in which a relationship between two poles, there is the individual with bones and flesh and desires and needs distinct from everything else, then there's the universal that which governs and unites all. For Adorno and Horkheimer, this shows that there are at least two types of reasoning men, Individual Reason and Collective Reason: They write: the transcendental supra individual “self” compromises the idea of a free, human social life in which men organize themselves as the universal subject and overcome the conflict between pure and empirical reason in the conscious solidarity of the whole. This represents the idea of true universality: Utopia. At the same time, however reason constitutes the court of judgments of calculation, which adjusts the world for the ends of self-preservation and recognizes no function other than the preparation of the object from mere sensory material, in order to make it to the material of subjugation. This is a difficult but important quote, one type of reason calculates how to live together as a group reason between men; another calculates how the individual can use his own surroundings for his own self-preservation. These two types of Reason can come into conflict, but which one is more reasonable, what's the rational way to share these four apples? For me to survive “four for me, none for you” or that anger you, “two for me two for you”, either ways though the instrumental reason(Cost-effectiveness analysis) of the Enlightenment sees a neutral world of material objects to be used to further human ends. What matters is how we or I use the apples, they write from now on, matter would at last be mastered without any illusion of ruling or inherent powers of hidden qualities, for the Enlightenment whatever does not conform to the rule of computation and utility is suspect. We don't care about anything else about the Apple, we just calculate how best to produce and consume them, everything starts to be calculated in reference to this utility, what combination of apples goes to each store/which tools are best used for harvesting the apples quickly/which skills do we need to produce them more efficiently, this combines into a single principle, there is a best way and it's universal we should all adhere to it, it dominates us. This is how Adorno and Horkheimer make the provocative claim that enlightenment is totalitarian, everything must be made to conform to the principle of utility/ a unity/ the system of physics, when a system of thought whether it's Christianity or the best way of producing apples becomes fixed ideas and universal recipes, they lead to the rejection of anything not already analytically assimilated, they write: For the Enlightenment and I think which cannot be resolved into numbers and ultimately into one is illusion, modern positivism consigns it to poetry, the beauty of the Apple, the art of the Apple, God.
@johnchoi4248 Жыл бұрын
Mythology But, was the Enlightenment really that special? If enlightenment is the use of nature for human purposes, didn't disappear before the enlightenment, didn't the Enlightenment really precede the enlightenment. Is the modern enlightenment part of a longer process? Could magic and myth be a part of this narrative? Why so much grief for me? No man will hurl me down to Death, against my fate. And fate? No one alive has ever escaped it, neither brave man nor coward, I tell you- it's born with us the day that we are born. What makes mythology and enlightenment the same, both attempt to naturalize the universal rule, attempt to dominate the individual based on an eternal rule of instrumental reason. Even magic was an exchange, a deal with nature/ with the gods to preserve man. Think about sacrifice, this was meant to placate(to stop someone from feeling angry) the gods with a gift to them, in order to secure safe passage of food, like calculating utility, it's involved a sacrifice knack (a skill) for being better off later. The ancient Greeks took this logic and expanded it in place of the local spirits and demons, there appeared heaven and its hierarchy in place of the invitations of the magician and the tribe for the distinct gradation of sacrifice, and the labor vm3 mediated through the word of command. “Magic sacrifice” that exchange evolved into mythology, into religion. Take Poseidon as an example. Poseidon the god of the sea was Poseidon for all. All must worship Him bestowed gifts and sacrifices upon him, if they are to have safe passage across the stormy seas. You talk of Poseidon when you talk about where it's dangerous to say on, where it's not, he represents a kind of instrumental reason, he features largely in the Odyssey. is it a work of myth or of enlightenment? Written sometime in the eighth century BC, Adorno and Horkheimer call it the basic text of European civilization as a cultural artifact, it tells us a lot about how the Greeks thought, Homer accolades (praise and approval) popular Greek myths into one man's story, Adorno and Horkheimer see Odysseas as the proto (primitive) bourgeois individual, they write: the contrast between the single surviving ego and the multiplicity of fate reflects the antithesis between enlightenment and myths. Odyssey is his journey is the path of the self through myths, his self-preservation takes precedent over the consuming power of the natural world, often described metaphorically as the gods. Poseidon, the god of the sea is used. Zeus, the god of lightning. Aphrodite, the goddess of love They are things that have domination over us, they represented something outside of human control, something that affects humans, they writes: All the adventures Odyssey survives, a dangerous temptation as deflecting the self from the path of its logic. Odysseas must forge a path between the gods and nature's will and his own desire for self-preservation on his journey home, and he's a cunning figure, who rationally working out what belongs to nature, what he cannot manipulate and must align himself to, and what he can use what he can make use of to get by. He foreshadows in many ways the bourgeois man of the Enlightenment. Take his encounter with the Sirens creatures whose beautiful singing withdrawal sailors towards the rocks to shipwreck them. Odyssey s is too curious about the sirens cruel, but he is also cunning. He orders his men to plug their ears with beeswax and to tie him to the mast. The men row forward, Bolivia's to the Sirens cruel, like proletariat workers they must ignore their desires and keep rowing, the master (bourgeois man) must listen to nature's call to work out what's logical/what's reasonable /what can be instrumentally used They write: the formula for Odysseys is cunning is that the detached, instrumental mind, by submissively embracing nature, renders to nature what is hers and thereby cheats her. The mythical monsters under whose power he falls represents, as it were petrified contracts and legal claims dating from primeval time. Take his encounter with the monsters Scylla and Charybdis, they live on either side of the strait of Messina, one represents rocks jutting from the water; the other a whirlpool, passes through must choose between the two. Odysseys is advised that if he passes by Scylla, he would lose only a few men instead of his entire ship. Calculation/ instrumental reason/ enlightenment, the myth represents necessity, the power of the currents, and the danger through this route, and nature has a right (a legal claim on this), no man can avoid it. In myth and they see the codifying that describing the marking of both the predictable elements and the unpredictable elements in nature. Is this not reason? Is this not a practice not much different from the scientific one of modernity Marquis de sade In the marquis de sade, Adorno and Horkheimer see individual desire that too can be thought of logically and reasonably, the self-preservation of passion, desire, de sade is the writer of impulse of individual desire of the person's libidinal passions (having or showing strong sexual desires). He who wants something can work out logically, how to get it? For Adorno and Horkheimer decides work represents the embodiment of enlightenment values about the sanctity of the individuals needs and desires. “The work of the Marquis De Sade, they write mockingly exhibits understanding without direction from another that is to say the bourgeois subjects freed from all tutelage..” Tutelage: guidance and teaching They discuss De Sade's book Juliet, Juliet teaches as follows on the self-discipline of the criminal. First, reflect on your plan for several days in advance. Consider all its consequences paying attention to what can be useful to you…. and what might possibly betray you. Weigh these things just as soberly as if you were sure to be discovered. Juliet loves science, she hates God and anything else she deems irrational. A dead God, she says of Christ, nothing is more comical than this nonsensical combination of words from the catholic dictionary. God, which means eternal death, which means not eternal. Idiotic Christians! What do you intend to do with your dead God; instead, preserve your desire work out what you want, calculate how to guess it. It's the Nietzschean “Will to Power” that morality is actually nothing more than the imposition of the will of the stronger on everyone else, which leads us to totalitarianism.
@johnchoi4248 Жыл бұрын
Totalitarianism Whether it's the codified myth of Scylla and Charybdis, the rationality of working out your desire and convincing others to follow it, if objects are valueless to be used just for the purposes of self-preservation, why would this not apply to people too? Repetition and predictability are key to understanding how myth enlightenment and totalitarianism at linked. The point of myth was to try to understand and codify something that wasn't understood the point of science of observing is to codify something too - everytime you go near that coast you hit rocks, every time water is placed over fire, it boils. The key is repetition and predictability, they write: The principle of imminence the explanation of every event is repetition, which Enlightenment's upholds against mythical imagination is that of myth itself. The Bible’s wisdom which acknowledges “nothing new under the sun”, because all of the pieces in the meaningless game have been played and all the great thoughts have been thought. All possible discoveries can be construed in advance. It's about standardization a key feature of fascism that everything everyone is in its place repeatable, obedient, you take out one part and you can replace it with another. they write: The more dominant the complex social organism becomes, the less it tolerates interruptions of the ordinary course of life, today as yesterday, tomorrow as today, everything must follow the same course. If reason is the perfect homogeneity of everyone calculating the universal together, then what's left of the individual? Reason, then, is totalitarian. The unity of the manipulated collective consists in the negation of each individual and in the scorn poured and a type of society, which could make people into individuals. Enlightenment stands in the same relationship to things as the dictator to human beings. This is why Nazis cannot abide any promiscuity, it's the practicing of individual particular fleeting bodily passions at the expense of the obedience to the single governing total rule. To sum up, we should return to the foundational quote that myth is already enlightenment and enlightenment revert to myth it's still a difficult phrase, but it does connect the disparate parts of the argument in some way. Domination/ Enlightenment/ Mythology/ Individual passion/ Totalitarianism Simon Jarvis puts it this way, in order to escape the charge that it's merely subjective, thought sets itself the task of replicating what exists with no hidden extras, thought is to confine itself to the facts which are thus the points, at which thought comes to a halt. Question as to whether these facts might change is ruled out by enlightened thought as a pseudo problem, when a person/ a storyteller/scientists/a law maker thinks or creates or observes, he describes: the edges in stone turns it in something that he wants to be accepted and the more powerful and systematized it becomes, the more it connects to all the other parts/the more weight at bears dying/the more it dominates and encourages you to accept it. The dialectic of enlightenment is a difficult book, it's style, by design, is fragmentary. Sometimes contradictory, even their intellectual friends complained of its complicated structure, when Horkheimer asked Leo Lowenthal to recommend figures who might provide feedback for them, he replied preferring ironically to the books pessimism and complexity that Huxley didn't read German and Joyce was dead.
@myla6135 Жыл бұрын
Thanks very much. How did you do all this? I kept missing some of what was said as the clips that were shown were so engrossing I was easily distracted .... even when I went back to listen again!
@HxH2011DRA4 жыл бұрын
Do Epicurus next
@hammadraza10004 жыл бұрын
Where is the second part of this video? Can anyone please share?
@ryandudley36163 жыл бұрын
14:34 anyone know what the music is here ?
@nebuloncloud51812 жыл бұрын
This video is wrong; the transcendental subject of Hegel and enlightened reason is a totalitarian unity in that no pure subject as such exists, the subject of history is itself dialectical tension between mereological parts of history and wholes of the historical, not the white, Christian man who wrote the historical narrative that is the Western Cannon. History happens whether it fits into the Kantian ontology or not.
@ksabella44324 жыл бұрын
I think they misrepresent what Homer is about. Check out Hubert Dreyfus and Sean Dorrance Kelly's work. Otherwise, I'm all in on their view of enlightenment.