taken from www.archive.org... This movie is part of the collection: Ourmedia www.archive.org... Producer: Ric Brown Keywords: Cultural Studies, Critical Theory, Adorno; Adorno; Critical Theory
Пікірлер: 445
@strunkenwhite17 жыл бұрын
"We live in a spectacular society, that is, our whole life is surrounded by an immense accumulation of spectacles. Things that were once directly lived are now lived by proxy. Once an experience is taken out of the real world it becomes a commodity. As a commodity the spectacular is developed to the detriment of the real. It becomes a substitute for experience." - Guy Debord
@stephanie0lima3 жыл бұрын
Such a strong quote!
@skadeline3 жыл бұрын
I was thinking of that too. But Adorno is much deeper.
@ji-soo10334 ай бұрын
For adorno it’s a bit more than that
@abdifatahaden57857 жыл бұрын
The Kendall Jenner Pepsi Ad brought me here.
@rebeccalovecraft34325 жыл бұрын
Bless your soul for I have died and gone to communist heaven. That comment was too good.
@creichling2638 Жыл бұрын
How prescient he was about the commodification of protest and genuine human experience.
@sethiegangst12 жыл бұрын
I think he has a salient point that can be generally acceptable for anyone despite their opinions about popular music: the medium of popular music is inherently designed to be entertaining and, very importantly, consumable. Like candy. Or bubble gum especially. Pop. But who has the right to deprive people of something they genuinely enjoy, as long as it is not manipulative or egregiously over-stepping its range of expression. Awareness of any pop creator's medium is essential to their success.
@davidhelbich2 жыл бұрын
A detail: the bit with "past temperment" is not well translated. "...weil die ganze Sphere der Unterhaltungsmusik (...) so mit dem Warencharakter, dem Amusement, mit dem Schielen nach Konsum verbunden ist ..." could be "...because the entire sphere of popular music, (...) is to such a degree connected with the commodity character, the amusement, with the aim for consumption...". I know, I am 11 years late with this comment....
@calebproductions59707 жыл бұрын
Wow who would've thought it I finally saw the guy that wrote all of the Beatles lyrics and music
@aj61784 жыл бұрын
That would be so cool if that was true and it would also b cool if I was related to him
@Melvorgazh3 жыл бұрын
And who really wrote the Rolling Stones songs? So Adorno was a friend of Brian Epstein and Joe Flannery?
@Citadin8 ай бұрын
He didn't personally write their songs, but he definitely provided the overall structure, message and direction.
Sigmund Freud wrote Rock Around the Clock, and Johnny B Goode! He played all of Chuck Berry's early guitar parts too. On a viola.
@miljazarubica862910 жыл бұрын
When it comes specifically to music and protest/political function of it, i agree with him more than i would like to admit. I personally always found that songs engaged in protests and advocating social changes performed by picture perfect celebrities banalise and trivialise the actual problem and was never able to look past the its entertainment function. In academic terms, i see the main problem to be the vast dispersion of music audiences (music's decentralised power) and the fact that not everyone identifies with and is influenced by it in the same way, whether it be personal interpretation or geographical dispersion. Music can function as a channel for up keeping collective memory and as a strategy of collective empowerment but I don't see it directly and visibly causing social changes.
@turahzaq10 жыл бұрын
Agreed. High five!
@miljazarubica862910 жыл бұрын
high five back at ya!;D
@turahzaq10 жыл бұрын
Milja Zarubica Aw, thanks! :-)
@SpicyDragoon7 жыл бұрын
Marry me please, you beautiful woman.
@Rozmatronicles6 жыл бұрын
Milja Zarubica tldr
@iracknads Жыл бұрын
"Day Tripper" is my favorite Adorno song!
@danfoss15356 ай бұрын
I was just thinking yesterday, that's the one that started it all(one of them) for the lead guitar sound of the sixties. One that got me started. Thank you Theodor Adorno! I wonder if he's responsible for Eddie Van Halen too....🤯🤣
@MyDenis08 ай бұрын
using background music to a protest sets the protest as a background to our own narcisism and superficiality, comfort makes us weak. Music can be only used as protest if you protest music itself.
@SeeMick111 жыл бұрын
I think guys like Adorno and Walter Benjamin had the world of music change on them and they just didn't get it. Sure, music may be a commodity, but that doesn't mean that it isn't also meaningful as a forum for protest.
@nomoteticus13 жыл бұрын
@nomoteticus The problem is that even protest music contains within the seeds of domination and uniformisation (the 4/4 beat, the focus on the chorus, etc), so even when they're singing about rebellion, the music subversively invites them to conform.
@boptillyouflop Жыл бұрын
Dunno about that... Societies with pretty flat social hierarchy (ex: algonquins) play a lot of 4/4 and 6/8, it plays very well in a drum circle... Music traditions with more common use of meters like 5/4, 7/4 etc are also often attached to fairly hierarchical cultures (Greek, Arabic, Indian etc). So I very much disagree about 4/4 planting the seeds of domination and uniformisation.
@TallicaMan198615 күн бұрын
@@boptillyouflop dang thats an old comment, hope the dude's okay. Not only this, but we must also zoom out to know why a lot of recent rebellious acts were in 4/4. It was pretty much an F you to the established music at the time as well as critics and how they wanted you to conform to that type of music and from it came a raw type of attitude that you can only get with meat head riffs in 4/4.
@boptillyouflop15 күн бұрын
@@TallicaMan1986 Indeed. Adorno hated the Beatles, yet I'm pretty sure that they convinced way more people to join the left wing than Adorno...
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
A few instantiations of Schopenhauer's timeless, wisely unhistorical profundity: "Intellectual conversation, whether grave or humorous, is only fit for intellectual society; it is downright abhorrent to ordinary people, to please whom it is absolutely necessary to be common and dull." - Counsels and Maxims
@PtpopАй бұрын
If Adorno spent his life’s research being critical of consumption culture and popular art and music then why are there people saying he wrote songs for The Beatles?
@spb788310 жыл бұрын
Brilliant insight, and a sad recapitulation not only on why the hippie movement failed, but why it was to a certain extent an essentially commercial movement from the start (in contrast to what the popular history asserts. Indeed, why wouldn't the popular histories assert such a theory? If anything, it benefits and historically "props up" that which is popular.) Frank Zappa put it another way regarding his "talk" at the London School of Economics in (I believe) 1968 (this is from a 10/30/69 Down Beat article written by Larry Kart): "I was invited to speak at the London School of Economics. So I went over there and asked, 'What do you want me to say?' So here's a bunch of youthful British leftists who take the same youthful leftist view that is popular the world over. It's like belonging to a car club. The whole leftist mentality - 'We want to burn the . . . world down and start all over and go back to nature.' Basing their principles on Marxist doctrine this and Mao Tse Tung that and all these clichs that they've read in their classes. And they think that's the basis for conducting a revolution that's going to liberate the common man. Meanwhile, they don't even know any common men. With their mod clothes, either that or their Che Guevara khakis. It's a ... game. "I do not think they will acquire the power to do what they want to do, because I'm positive that most of them don't really believe what they're saying. I told them that what they were into was just the equivalent of this year's flower power. A couple of years before those same schmucks were wandering around with incense and bells in the park . . . because they heard that that was what was happening in San Francisco. The first thing they asked me was what was going on at Berkeley. I was thinking to myself, 'What, you guys want to copy that too?' . . . It's really depressing to sit in front of a large number of people and have them all be that stupid, all at once. And they're in college." ------- Does anyone know if Zappa went on record with his thoughts on Adorno, either as a sociologist, composer, or both? I can see why based on the above-referenced quote Zappa may have agreed with certain portions of Adorno's thinking (e.g., his criticsm of consumerist culture) and disagreed with others (particularly those that might have supplied the same "cliches" he derides in the students' assertions).
@squatch54510 жыл бұрын
Where did you get the idea that the hippie movement failed? Fox News?
@spb788310 жыл бұрын
Actually, no. I think I got the idea when I read in today's headlines that Bob Dylan appeared in a Super Bowl ad... Believe it or not, more than just bland conservatives can be critical of that time. LIBERALS can also reflect with disappointment on the 60s when considering what many popular musicians of that era and the counter-culture became. You seem to address me as if to suggest that I watch Fox News, which is not the case. I would consider myself to be what most would consider a liberal, and certainly not someone who watches Fox News. But I also like to think and question things. Dogma comes in all shapes and sizes, and (to paraphrase Socrates) the unexamined politics are not worth espousing. Questioning the hippie movement as such, I simply wonder how much of a counter-culture it really was, as opposed to a secondary strand of a dominant "mainstream" culture. Self-reflection used to be considered a virtue.
@squatch54510 жыл бұрын
Steve Beck It's one thing to question the hippie movement, it's another thing to claim it failed. Hippies are still here, and are still living off the land. In fact, there are more intentional communities existing now than ever before. So much for failing. Even the word 'hippie' has never been more popular. Every time somebody dares to criticize the status quo nowadays (e.g.. occupy wall street), they are labeled a hippie. You just did it yourself, about an Adorno video no less. But Adorno was not referring to hippies specifically. He was talking about how popular music has a trivializing effect on the very social problems it is protesting about, due to the music's inherent commercial appeal. The music becomes yet another commodity to be consumed, turning the 'unbearable' into entertainment.
@spb788310 жыл бұрын
Joe Smith I guess we'll just have to learn to disagree.
@turahzaq10 жыл бұрын
Three months and not a 'like' .. you're spot on!
@egapnala6511 жыл бұрын
Kant's philosophy is rooted in trying to determine what an individual can and cannot know about reality. Nothing to do with constructing enormous tottering edifices embracing the whole of humanity in a paralysing death grip of historical determinism. That's why he's a real philosopher and not just a money spinning charlatan making the bourgeois feel good about themselves and justifying crimes against humanity on the grounds of rational historical inevitability. Big difference.
@dougalsii Жыл бұрын
Adorno can't dance unless it's a waltz.
@MyImmaculateQueen Жыл бұрын
Didn't this guy write The Beatles and Led Zeppelin tracks?
@connormondayАй бұрын
No
@ineedsaltplease6205 жыл бұрын
He's still right no matter what holes you poke in it
@Attmay4 жыл бұрын
How lucky he was to live then and not now.
@egapnala6511 жыл бұрын
In his conflation of Object and Subject which makes all concepts of universal equality and validity. In order to separate a real horse from a dream about a horse there has to be subject/object split. Conflating the two negates that separation.
@deepfield239 ай бұрын
Spot on. Like always, professor.
@boptillyouflop9 ай бұрын
I dunno... I disagree deeply with Adorno. I understand that he was extremely disappointed with exploitative capitalism and nazism winning over, and that his life's work was figuring out how to prevent that disaster. And I can understand people turning to his ideas in an era where regular progressivism has been been coopted by money and power thanks to enablers like the Clintons. But I think the way he saw all of culture as guilty of propagating bad politics - and, in a way, poisoned to the root - fundamentally missed its target. Replacing the Beatles, Jazz and whatnot with difficult avant garde music will not make people turn towards better politics. Likewise, he considered that nothing in our edifice of knowledge was apolitical and that even the foundations were tainted and moved people towards bad politics, and I think that was just wrong, and he would have been much better to positively advocate for better politics instead of accusing everybody and everything of being coopted.
@tlatosmd13 жыл бұрын
Hmmm...the more I think about this, I start wondering if Yoko Ono's unbearable music was a reply to Adorno's critique. Only problem is, I don't think she sang about the Vietnam war...
@tabor0510 Жыл бұрын
Perhaps we should infer that she was screaming about it. A good question to ask in her next interview, what were you screaming about?
@Lorangie9 ай бұрын
Theodor Adorno est l'un des esprits les plus importants du XXème siècle.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
1. The fact that Kant wrote his Third Critique 17 years before the publication of the Phenomenology doesn't mean they were contemporaries. But even if Hegel was as proximal to Kant as Fichte, it still doesn't make sense to say they were "opposed." Schopenhauer tried to pronounce on the noumenon in a way Kant would never have accepted; does that mean that Kantianism is opposed to Schopenhauer? 2. Schopenhauer teaching at the same university doesn't mean he was "more than familiar" with Hegel.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
What's more, I think that "imposing rationality on the lives and histories of others" might be the most fitting epitaph for the author of Critique of Practical Reason and Idea for a Universal History With a Cosmopolitan Intent.
@jacobsonjj3 ай бұрын
Macklemore brought me here
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
By the way, it's one thing to say that Hegel made offensive and downright silly claims about the role of the Germanic races in history, though he can be forgiven at least as much as any other European thinker before Darwin. It's another thing to say that his "whole system" rests on this claim. The Philosophy of History and Philosophy of Right are the texts that feature such claims (somewhat) prominently; is "German triumphalism" really an intelligent summary of the Logic or Phenomenology though?
@aoifeobrien50815 жыл бұрын
Does anyone know what year this was filmed? Want to quote it in my dissertation
@Kommentator88812 жыл бұрын
@stillceaser These Infos come from the former brit. MI-agent John Coleman. I red his book about this in German titled "Die Hierarchie der Verschwörer - Das Komitee der 300" (J.K.Fischer Verlag). But this is only a translation. The original book was in English, but I dont know the title. But that Adorno and the "Frankfurter Schule" was official marxistic is well known. In Germany this school is also called "Marxburg". It leaded the transeducation of the german people after WW II.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
What difference does it make what particular angle he took? The fact that he didn't say he was certain of these ideas as the necessary unfolding of the World Spirit doesn't mean he didn't think they were true and had normative implications. If anything, it shows how subjectivism and irrationalism are just as susceptible of error as historicism.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
"Aristocracies are of three kinds: (1) of birth and rank; (2) of wealth; and (3) of intellect. The last is really the most distinguished of the three, and its claim to occupy the first position comes to be recognized, if it is only allowed time to work." - Counsels and Maxims
@4flyingfriends12 жыл бұрын
Does anyone know When and Where that interview was being made? And who the interviewer was? Thx
@user-ue4pt3uz9l6 ай бұрын
The film "Blood Diamond" (2007).
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
Show me where Hegel said that none of those perceptions can be distinguished.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
"That [judges, governors, priests, scholars, philosophers, and sundry other intellectuals] should be permanently relieved of all bodily labour as well as of all vulgar need and discomfort; nay, that in proportion to their much greater achievements they should necessarily own and enjoy more than the common man, is natural and reasonable." - On Human Nature
@edwardgivenscomposer2 жыл бұрын
Cue pitchforks.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
...was actually in keeping with the concerns of post-Kantian skepticism. It was at least as much an attempt to fill in serious lacunae in Kant's 'concern for what is possible for individuals to experience themselves' as was Kant's own work. And importantly, it was a necessary step, just because the attempt to say what the necessary structures for all possible experience are, without giving an account of the objective, begs the question: can a tenable account of schema be given sans the latter?
@Robert…Schrey7 ай бұрын
In classical music you have the practice of counting. And sometimes I wonder if this music has money character therefore.
@88Eab5 жыл бұрын
Not everything entirely fails of its own accord. Popular music is a weapon used to simplify and degrade oblivious parties who are unaware of the doomed structural momentums heaving towards these planned rehearsals for extinction. "There is no There there"
@jareddavis9012 Жыл бұрын
That sounds quite conspiratorial. I wouldn't go that far.
@SavedByGrace_CitizenEmperorユウ3 жыл бұрын
He has a very good point. Millionaire popstars singing about social injustice shouldn't work. But it can. Do lyrics really matter? I do pay a lot of attention to lyrics but they often are hard to decipher. If I like the melodies, the genre, the production, the singer's voice, as long as the lyrics are quite alright, it can work really well. Then there are those musicians that release a deep track once in a while, but mostly they are singing abou banalities. The music industry is about money and fame. You can even manipulate your listeners by writing a deep song. It's almost impossible to figure out if the author's intention is honest or not. Can it be honest? Not really. It's your job, you have to sell to make money. You will always choose your words carefully.
@emanuel_soundtrack Жыл бұрын
He speaks no sense, as most marxists. HIs music also sucks. He wants protest with atonal melodies or what?
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
*It might be too much to say that Sartre is "staunchly" anti-Hegelian, but his later work, like Critique of Dialectical Reason, at least gestures at the irreverence toward Hegel which characterized his early years. And Lacan was something of a Hegelian, but it's also true that he stood more on the blurry line between structuralists and post-structuralists.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
To say "these are the transcendental structures that determine all possible experience," and to make them knowable in a way that their objects cannot be, is to stop the necessary dialectic of the criticism of rationalism; for how can we pass verdict on these structures without understanding the whole which is prior to it, and the 'noumenal' qualities of which may make them radically different than how speculation represents them?
@egapnala6511 жыл бұрын
Each gave birth to narrow authoritarian concepts of power and history where an educated minority declared themselves to be harbingers of the next stage of dialectical evolution and were prepared to sacrifice whole acres of humanity on its altar.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
The point, my friend, is that because someone's views on aesthetics don't jibe with your own, that doesn't mean you can throw out their contributions in toto. Which is exactly what you want to do.
@calebproductions59707 жыл бұрын
Adorno wrote all of the Beatles tunes
@BourneAccident5 жыл бұрын
Yeah, yeah, yeah... He used to have long hair too! He played guitar on most of the tracks along with George Martin. lol
@naomelito5 жыл бұрын
@@BourneAccident Fuck You! ¬¬.I.
@Psychprogrock5 жыл бұрын
Adorno hated the Beatles' music.
@ryangarritty97614 жыл бұрын
Once heard Dylan's The Times They Are A Changin' in a supermarket. I had a little chuckle to myself. That's the same Bob Dylan who said the purpose of life was to become stinking rich so you could do as you wished.
@egapnala6511 жыл бұрын
Which is, of course, why Adorno made an entire career trying to assert that various composers (like Stravinsky) who did not write in accordance with his narrow diktats were somehow psychologically disturbed. If you had actually read Kant properly (which you clearly have not) you fully understand the folly of linking him to Hegel.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
Yes, I'm sure he was a very compassionate person. One need only review Schopenhauer's attitudes on the majority of humanity, save his precious "genius," to see what his compassion amounted to. But I think it's telling that you refer to his as an "all-embracing outlook." It reveals that his will to system is as strong- and as distorting of actual Existenz- as his historicist coevals.
@danielschaeffer12946 жыл бұрын
Something is happening, and you don't know what it is ...
@sorenaliabadi27874 жыл бұрын
Daniel Schaeffer mr Jones
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
"And since women exist in the main solely for the propagation of the species, and are not destined for anything else, they live, as a rule, more for the species than for the individual, and in their hears take the affairs of the species more seriously than those of the individual." - Studies in Pessimism
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
And who's "flinging up hierarchies of progress"? This statement itself doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain how I've posited progress hierarchically?
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
Umm, wait. You're saying that Hegel's "nonsense" influenced the majority of 20th-century philosophers. Yet when I mention 20th-century philosophers who were actually influential, you bring up the fact of their inscrutability as proof of their irrelevance to the subject at hand, viz. the actual influence of Hegel. This is a category mistake.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
It's unimportant to me whether or not Hegel was merely a mouthpiece for Prussianism; much of the recent (and not-so-recent) scholarship from better experts than either of us has called this canard into question. What's important is whether Hegel's method is entirely flawed; whether historicism can dovetail with dialectic to reveal anything more than Transcendental Idealism will allow...
@markpx11 ай бұрын
All art becomes commodity in a capitalist society. No art can escape commodification, not even difficult contempory music such as Schoenberg. The purpose of popular music is to bring people together and create a community around simple shared pleasures and beliefs, which is a purpose that is in direct opposition to capitalistic commodification, which is cynically designed to isolate the individual and create artificial alienated needs and desires that can only be satisfied by materialistic consumption.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
Hmm. So in other words, you just don't like Adorno because he was into Expressionism and thought other contemporary aesthetic movements didn't effectively capture alienation in late bourgeois society. So what? What does that have to do with his Negative Dialectics? Or his critique of fundamental ontology? Does a thinker have to be perfect, or stay perfectly within the bounds of what they know, to retain a place in academe?
@tlatosmd13 жыл бұрын
@AlemanJuan Basically the same as what he said about the 1960s Students Movement in general: They're onto something, but they're not in the position to do anything about what they realize is wrong with the world because of their absolute lack of support from society at large.
@egapnala6511 жыл бұрын
No the crest of Hegel's Philosophy is the idea that, as a Philosopher working for a German State apparatus, he was the ultimate end of mankind's cultural evolution. Hegel declares himself to be God and everybody believes him. Aside from Schopenhauer who bears the brunt of bourgeois outrage for daring to suggest that Hegel was wearing the Emperor's new clothes, that history was not rational, that there is no reason behind anything aside from a will to exist of which every thing is a victim.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
Wow. I'm not talking about causal connections or any phenomenal relation in general; I'm talking about the dialectic of Kantian critique itself. I don't know why you would confute a purely methodological question with a disconnected categorical claim about "defining individual units of perception." But while we're on the subject, how can it be true that there's no 'universal necessity' (not my claim) if it's necessarily true that all that can be defined are individual units of perception?
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
What does this even mean? Schopenhauer was, indeed, all of the things I said he was, and he was fully in earnest when he made these statements. Now the burden is on you to show me why, if he meant for these statements to be taken seriously by serious thinkers, the latter actually should, since Adorno's "elitism" invalidates his entire corpus.
@egapnala6512 жыл бұрын
@stillceaser Dear oh dear, no argument, just statements. It is profoundly ambiguous which is how a right/left Hegelian split was able to occur and how Gobineau was able to apply the dialectical rational conflict to race and Marx to social classes. In Gobineau it is seen as rational retreat from a utopian state of society, whilst Marx merely applied it wholescale to social structures. Schopenhauer was the only one to see through the bullshit of his generation which is why the bourgeois hate him.
@egapnala6512 жыл бұрын
@stillceaser Just been reading up about a composer called Robert Still. He fell foul of the Adornoite regime at the BBC when it was run by William Glock and Hans Keller. They declared whole swathes of music to be "unsuited for broadcast" and promoted the Darmstadt school in its place. Major composers like Martinu, Copland, Matyas Seiber, Panufnik, Honneger, Bloch, Milhaud etc were aesthetically cleansed from broadcast mediums and concert platforms. Hegel's legacy speaks for itself.
@CastlesinTheWhy Жыл бұрын
What a lovely paranoid fantasy.
@egapnala65 Жыл бұрын
@@CastlesinTheWhy Historically verifiable.
@egapnala6511 жыл бұрын
Kant's language fits the complexity of his thought. He was awkward like that. Hegel just flung around high sounding words and concepts to curry favour with academia. Its hilarious to read that whenever one of his so-called dialectical transitions takes place the verbiage becomes even denser around it. Kant's philosophy is rooted in the interior, it is from the "I", hence the idea of god being only valid as individual experience rather than shared objective fact. It is real philosophy as it....
@m.s.r.s-94952 жыл бұрын
You´re a fake philosopher.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
Second sentence should have read: "Yet when I mentioned 20th-century, anti-Hegelian philosophers who were actually influential..." Point being that it's not Hegel's influence per se that accounts for what you happen to not like in 20th-century philosophy. If your gripe is stylistic, then fine; but the anti-realism in these thinkers, which was the meat of Sokal's critique, is actually the opposite of Hegel's epistemic stance.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
Schopenhauer evidently thought that whatever flowering of culture existed among the dark peoples was attributable to their heterochthonous ruling class- which originated in temperate regions. Cosmetic, indeed. It apparently didn't occur to you that a man who thought he could determine another's intelligence by their physiognomy would consider "cosmetic" differences among the races to be of paramount importance.
@egapnala6511 жыл бұрын
So little boy. Come back to me when you have actually read these works for yourself rather than (like most students) read mere precis of them in textbook commentaries. Bryan Magee commented that it is now wholly possible to qualify as a philosopher without actually having read seriously a single text. Talking to you, I can see how he came to that conclusion.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
I deleted it because I thought there was a different way of expressing that. If you hadn't noticed, there's a post with almost the exact same wording. And the fact remains that I *don't* care. Not that I think it's unimportant; only that it's not my area of concern. I'm also not interested in cardiology, though I wouldn't doubt its importance.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
Hmm...it's interesting that you think only Kant's philosophy is "rooted in the interior," when critics of Transcendental Idealism as various as Jacobi, Platner, and Maimon based their (fairly devastating) arguments on Kant's account of 'exteriority', viz. the existence of external objects to account for the "pure passivity" of sensibility in the CPR. What's ironic is that Hegel's system was a response to just such critiques. His concern with the "shared objective fact," however misdirected...
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
In other words, because someone used an epistemological approach to evil ends, that approach is in itself illegitimate? What are you really saying here? I mean, phenomenology was used by both Levinas and Heidegger; does it follow that if the latter did horrible things, the whole method is illegitimate?
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
I mentioned Foucault, Althusser, and other "names" because I wanted to hypostatize these 'errant philosophers of the 20th century' as you pronounce them. What I discovered was that you're not faintly familiar with their relationship to Hegel; that your only gripe with Hegel's legacy in them is a stylistic and not an epistemological one; that you have a hazy understanding of the one thinker you singled out among them (Foucault) as saying anything important. I prefer not to play in the ethers.
@egapnala6511 жыл бұрын
Selective quotations and cherry picking does not an argument make. I reject Hegelianism because his entire philosophical outlook is merely an exercise in self glorification. As can be shown by simply linking his supposed conclusions together. As I have already demonstrated. Schopenhauer has flaws, but he wasn't arrogant enough to place himself as being the ultimate product of mankind's entire cultural/ historical evolution as Hegel clearly does.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
Here's an especially interesting one, when taken in combination with Schopenhauer's less than enlightened views on the differences between the races: "Gobineau in his work Les Races Humaines has called man l'animal mechant par excellence/ People take this very ill, because they feel that it hits them; but he is quite right, for man is the only animal which causes pain to others without any further purpose than just to cause it." - On Human Nature
@egapnala6511 жыл бұрын
Er... no sometimes aesthetic means are more communicable about ideas than text books. Like the dialogue form for example.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
So, is it more plausible that historicism is wrong because it exalts the present- except when it doesn't, as in Nietzsche's or Adorno's case- or that you're looking for a reason to dismiss historicism as such?
@egapnala6513 жыл бұрын
@TheCanine2 You should read Henze's autobiography. He can be found strutting around there denouncing everything south of absolute chaos as "Kitsch". For somebody so fixated on consumerism and capitalism it would be interesting to learn whether he was paid to give talks like this, or whether he gave his books away for free? If not then he is just as guilty of commodifying cultural discourse as the people he "critiques". His market share may be of a different demographic, but the end result is?
@egapnala6511 жыл бұрын
The thing I find so amusing about Hegelians is that they are convinced that there lies some shared conclusion that embraces mankind in general and that if one is simply not in tune with this shared revelation then one should be confined to a gas chamber or gulag. Given that you have yet to prove there is some kind of reality that exists beyond the content of your own mind, this is rather an amusing step. I reject Hegelianism, you embrace it. End of story.
@stillceaser12 жыл бұрын
@Kommentator888 Which infos are you referring to chap? The stuff that egapnala65 is talking about?
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
Yes, you seem generally to prefer axiology to all the other, equally important sub-fields of philosophy. Maybe because it's much easier to import unearned opinion into this area than all the others. At any rate, the above comment has nothing to do with the point I raised: Sartre's critical approach to dialectical philosophy, and his irreverence towards Hegelianism (he actually *opposed* the inevitable reconciliation of opposites in dialectical tension, a very un-Hegelian position).
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
What is the "ubermenschen" philosophy of Hegelianism? You are aware that the "ubermensch" was a Nietzschean counterpoint to the ideal human of such Hegelians as David Strauss, right? And that the majority of the major philosophers of the 20th century defined themselves in opposition to Hegel (like the French thinkers after Sartre and Althusser, Karl Popper, Heidegger,and the logical positivists)?
@egapnala6511 жыл бұрын
I didn't say they were opposed. I said it is entirely possible to ignore the ludicrous self serving posturings of Hegel and go straight to Schopenhauer's more serious considerations. Hegel does not even qualify to enter the argument as far as I am concerned.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
As for Popper, Popper knew as much Hegel as an autodidact with a second-hand bookseller's anthology in hand. Have you never read Walter Kaufmann's takedown of Popper's broadsides against historicism? The man was reading from popular anthologies, like an undergrad.
@egapnala6511 жыл бұрын
Surely, given the nature of this video, all questions aside from the aesthetic ones are irrelevant.
@egapnala6511 жыл бұрын
Their lives overlap substantially. The "Critique of Judgement" (1790) "Phenomenology" (1807). No doubt Kant would have have been the most important figure in the field when Hegel was a student. Schopenhauer was more than familiar with Hegel and his ideas as anybody who has actually read some history would tell you. They were even tutors at the same university for a while.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
When did I say that Marx and Hegel were separate? The "pedantry" charge comes from your unnecessary exposition on Gobineau.
@egapnala6511 жыл бұрын
There is little point in you throwing name like Lacan, Deleuze etc at me. These were, like Adorno and Hegel people who hid paucity of thought behind extravagance of language. Sokal has shown these people up for what they are.
@egapnala6511 жыл бұрын
Read them all like I have and then come back to me. Simple.
@AlemanJuan13 жыл бұрын
what do you think adorno would have said about a band like ton steine scherben?
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
Again, you're only concerned with his aesthetics. Is it possible to disagree with some facet of a philosopher's thought and still think that other parts warrant one's attention? Or are you still in thrall to the "total system" archetype that is the less admirable legacy of Hegelianism?
@ac1dP1nk12 жыл бұрын
Fair and standard points, but what do you mean by 'over-stepping its range of expression.'. Surely as artists they are not limited by anything aside imagination
@egapnala6511 жыл бұрын
Unfortunately it doesn't. He made an entire career out dissing Stravinsky. Yet did he produce something comparable to "Les Noces"? Of course not he was incapable of anything apart from watery Schoenberg. His poisonous legacy destroyed a good many composers who had a lot to say but didn't feel the serialist language was how they wished to say it. Thankfully, now that his influence is on the wane these other figures are being re-assessed.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
Yes, I brought "necessity" into the equation, the same way as Kant did, the same way as many philosophers have done. But so what? I didn't intend "necessity" according to dogmatic metaphysics; I intended it in the same way Kant did in his Preface to the Critique. I certainly didn't drag "historical necessity" into the discussion, either. For all your erudition, you seem to have a poor recall of distinct ideas.
@egapnala6512 жыл бұрын
@stillceaser So not only do you deny the simple facts of how Hegel's philosophy actually terminates, you now deny that Adorno came to the same opinions as Hitler on Jazz. I think it is you who needs to do some serious study, not me.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
I mean, I have no idea how you read Idea for a Universal History With a Cosmopolitan Intent and do not reach the conclusion that Kant thought that reason and nature were intimately tied, such that nature itself *intended* the use of human reason to resolve all political conflict and bring about perfect concordance between the state and bourgeois civil society. There's nothing so teleological as Kant's conception of history; is a vice with Hegel to become a virtue with Kant?
@Deusriba11 жыл бұрын
Could you put it more detailed? In message, if you will.
@lisharae6111 жыл бұрын
Year? Producer? Name of film? Interviewer?
@egapnala6512 жыл бұрын
@stillceaser He still clings to the myth that history is a rational process determined by endless conflict.
@egapnala6511 жыл бұрын
Not at all. Read Schopenhauer on Academic philosophy. The Hegelian influence can also be said to be linguistic and semantic as well as ideological.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
It was, in fact, the very basis of his Analogies of Experience, which sought to demonstrate inter alia and contra Berkeley that the seeming permanence of our experience wasn't attributable to the mind, but rather to the permanence of substance. Your description of the Kantian project, for all your pretended erudition, is that of a tyro.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
LOL. So you're just gonna ignore the quotes I presented, why? Because you suspect that some of them might be "googled", though I gave direct quotes? Schopenhauer's social observations were practically written with bile. You think his warm sentiments toward animals and nature are expiatory, but in the same breath you acknowledge the "all-embracing" character of a world-view in which women were unequals, whites are the source of all high culture, etc.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
Adorno was a Marxist, sure. But that doesn't mean he was an unqualified Hegelian, or responsible for the idealist excesses of Hegel. In fact, the younger members of the Frankfurt School took a strong position against Hegelian absolutism in part to demarcate themselves from Lukacs and other early Western Marxists. You might be a "musicologist" or whatever, but it pays to know something more about the people you criticize than their views on music.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
LOL. Because Gobineau is in no way necessary for an understanding of either Hegel or Marx. Can you explain to me why you think he's so indispensable, except to understand the "thinking" of Houston Stewart Chamberlain, Alfred Rosenberg and the like?
@egapnala6511 жыл бұрын
And this is the man who gave us the Ubermensch of course. Historicism has no part in Schopenhauer, he viewed it as stasis, therefore Nietzsche's critique is irrelevant. Nothing wrong with studying dialectics, everything wrong with applying to history and trying to extrapolate important truths about humanity from them. Particularly when you are talking about armed warfare as being the principle by which these conflicts are resolved. See the blood in the streets.
@untoldtruth129511 жыл бұрын
Ah, yes. Even though I gave you names for the texts from which these quotes emerge, you repose confidently on this idea that everything I've gotten was from a search engine, because once I didn't have my text ready to hand. But the fact remains that you've merely asserted that I don't understand the subject/object debate; the fact remains that you've merely gestured at superior knowledge of these subjects without ever presenting it.