I love how she ends the interview ascribing a certain opinion to her audience - that of disagreeing with Marcuse, seeking to modulate it to the constraints of a hegemonic position, in place of solely presenting the content and allowing them to draw their own conclusions, thereby clearly exemplifying the criticism put forth by Marcuse and the Frankfurt School in respect to the cultural industry.
Marcuse as an unclear writer? Reason and Revolution explained Hegel so clearly to me, that it catipulted my interest in not only studying him and Kant, but motivating me to learn German.
To " Pearlman Fredy : YOU were able to understand Hegel, by reading Marcuse ???-------Well, I congratulate you; I tried-----yes, I did, but I found Professor Marcuse just as unclear, & impossible to understand in any systematic way, as I did Hegel.-------HEGEL ! OMG !! ---------Impossible. -------------And, I tried, I really did. -----------As a college student in the late 60's, early 70's, I found the novels & poems of Hermann Hesse to be far more entertaining, & even if you will, " meaningful". ---------Between Herr Hesse, & Dr Victor Frankel's works , I found intellectual challenge & reward ; with Hegel, Marx, & Marcuse, it was only confusion--- with entire paragraphs & chapters, wholly impossible to understand. That said, I will say, THOSE WERE, the days, My friend., & we thought they'd never --------ever-------end.--------------------------Wolfsky9, 73 y/o
The interviewer is Helen Hawkins, not HawkinXgXs: "Helen S. Hawkins, Ph.D., was a producer & host of KPBS humanities programs, an historian, co-founder and first president of San Diego National Organization for Women, and publications director for the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation. ... In the late 1970s Dr. Hawkins joined KPBS television as Executive Producer of Humanities programming. During her 6 years there she produced more than 100 television programs, many of which focus on women's rights and issues of the time. Her work received an Emmy and a silver gavel from the American Bar Association." I wonder why previous commenters Peter Pam and Keith Yohai get so upset and angry and frustrated listening to someone who sees deficits in society and tries to correct them. Their comments seem so out of proportion to me, why so defensive??
The question is: defensive for whom? I live in Brazil, where for 13 years, they tried to establish a society in the mold of the Frankfurt School and the only concrete result, besides one of the highest rates of violence mortality, was the election of an extreme right, which I do not like and I had to elect for lack of future. These theories cause marginal changes in developed economies, but in undeveloped countries they generate dysfunctional societies.
@@dakkar66 Bolsanero didn't ascend to power because of Marxism, Communism, Socialism or Marcuse. He ascended to power because of billions of dollars trickling down from the imperialist centers of capital starving out the economies who attempt to negate the aforementioned. You didn't have to vote for him, nor anyone else. You could have taken the route of George Carlin, seen voting for the waste of time it is (at least under capitalism), and stayed home.
@@henryberrylowry9512 Well, you're partially right. Bolsonaro was elected because of the billions of dollars, but the billions stolen by a leftist party that wanted to keep in power through electoral corruption. And in Brazil, voting is mandatory. We can not stay at home. :(
April 25th, 1979, 3 months before he nonrepressively desublimated. 5:50 This is a key contradiction of Marxism: Marxism states that revolution is inevitable, however followers prompt revolution. Marcuse states that he just give facts, and the students realize from those facts they must revolt. His book should be called Irrational Man: an Autobiography .
The original meaning of the word in it's original use in the text Utopia by Sir Thomas More actually meant "good place" the author even said so. "In English, Utopia is pronounced the same as Eutopia (the latter word, in Greek Εὐτοπία [Eutopiā], meaning "good place," contains the prefix εὐ- [eu-], "good", with which the οὔ of Utopia has come to be confused in the English pronunciation).[5] That is something that More himself addresses in an addendum to his book: Wherfore not Utopie, but rather rightely my name is Eutopie, a place of felicitie." Full title "Utopia (Latin: Libellus vere aureus, nec minus salutaris quam festivus, de optimo rei publicae statu deque nova insula Utopia,[1] "A truly golden little book, not less beneficial than enjoyable, about how things should be in a state and about the new island Utopia")" Which is fucking bizzare because the utopia he outlines was a fucked up patriarchal slave owning place that punished premarital sex.
Would have liked to hear more of his treatment of the idea of "surplus repression" as it relates to current discussions around big tech: selective deplatforming, cancel culure, etc. Pressures from the government put on big tech as a form of surplus repression in the public square. Coaxing the currrent progeny of the "New Left" of Marcuse's time into being cheerleaders for this "surplus repression." Marcuse does indeed admit here that there has always been violence, and that counter-violence is the only acceptable form of violence. Are not these repressive, stifling actions of big tech the same repressive, violent acts in a different form? And although the form of repression is different, the function is certainly the same: to silence the opposition with one hand and to use the other to write shallow justifications of their hypocrisy without admitting to the hypocrisy. And without publicly owning their own violence (repression). I have always been interested in Marcuse since I read "The Making of a Counterculture" before going to the university. But aligning him directly with the hypocrisy of a power discourse which serves itself to conceal its own violence within accusations of systemic racism, a demand for "equity" over "equality," pushing the narrative of "rampant" police brutality, etc. is deceptive.
Funny, I strongly disagree with Marcuse on which of his books is better. He thinks Eros and Civilisation is better than One-Dimensional Man. Noooo way. One-Dimensional Man is his best one by far and one of the most important books in the 20th century, even though I have strong philosophical disagreements with him.
Another waffling bugger like marx never did a days work in his life and sponged a living telling all and sundry what was best for them , ponced off engels for a living and managed to look very well fed
I love how advocates of societal projects are able to put the imposition of their ideas on everyone and the word "freedom" in the same sentence. A good society needs to be good for everyone, and what is good is relative to each individual and encompasses an infinity of factors. Every model of society is the imposition of one person's model on all others, and by definition, always carries the seed of totalitarianism. Not even Jesus had a recipe for society, just render to Caesar what is Caesar's. He just came to prepare souls for transcendence. Nothing more delusional than love and passion for a future society created in your own head from which you judge the present real world.
It’s not that we have a position that can prevent large scale inhumanity, as discussed here on the topic of tolerance that led to Nazism and WW2. It’s that the default stance that permits such inhumanity to expand, to begin with, is what’s at fault. Certainly we had a chance to circumvent the Nazi expansion - most prominently in 1936 with the coup by Franco, supported by Hitler and Mussolini. The British and French non-interventionist insistence, even after the aerial bombing of Guernica, is one strong evidence. It’s actually one of the reasons why Guernica is so prominent in modern European history.
@@ADAMSIXTIES I wish he'd got up and come back, Adam, and bequeathed his resting place to NERO-Liberalism. 😎👺😵💫 🤔(Green Fire, UK.)🌈🦉Best Wishes, Geoff Nelson Hill, author, IngramSpark.
I so agree with him - dissent is tolerated only to the degree where it is not disruptive to any society. And conformity is oppressive, without a doubt.
You fail to realize that left-wing "conformity" that we have today - in which you are to be destroyed if you disagree with their extreme one-sided view - is FAR more oppressive, without a doubt!
I was about to say something along the same lines, but you got there first. Damn it. I wanted all the credit for being both insightful and witty. But, you should get the gold ring ... this time. Try not to hog all the glory. That would just be rude. 🤨
I wish I could get with a group of openminded people who actually want to problem solve and revolutionize. like, what strategies, ideas, images, words can we create that will entice the public to act in counter-violence against the system and the death drive. how can we bring attention to to this so that people can weigh their minds and actually come to a critical conclusion that revolt is the only key to freedom?
Yes, I think there is a shortage of invested explorative debate these days. But the best thing we can do about is try to seize the initiative for such debates ourselves!
“I’m sure many Americans would disagree with many of your views if not all of them…” Really? That’s what she ends the interview with? She got her last little nasty-gram in before they go off the air. How unprofessional… and inaccurate.
WTF? There's nothing "lovely" about this despicable jerk. If I was there I'd smash his "lovely" face in for all the extreme left-wing brainwashing damage he's done.
I don’t like her tone; I feel that it doesn’t stimulate the debate, despite of her intelligence. Marcuse deserves a more open and empathetic approach, as he has more to offer.
Freedom is not always given and that freedom you enjoy today is not given peaceful matter. A slave and oppressed people can hardly get liberty and freedom through ‘peace’ they have to fight for it. Stop being a naive idiot.
‘The rejection of capitalism may never have huge realworld consequences. “We should ditch capitalism, and try a socialist alternative” may well be the political equivalent of “One day, I will learn a foreign language, run a marathon, and write a novel”. It may be an idea that is popular as an abstract aspiration, but less so as a concrete action plan’ (p.17). Unfortunately, this is fair comment. However, there will be some significance that, amongst younger people today, capitalism has become a ‘bad word’: ‘Young people associate “socialism” predominantly with positive terms, such as “workers”, “public”, “equal” and “fair”. (...) Capitalism, meanwhile, is predominantly associated with terms such as “exploitative”, “unfair”, “the rich” and “corporations”’ (p.7) That can’t be a bad thing. ADAM BUICK
If you have no tolerance for intolerence, then you have to count yourself among the targets of your intolerence. Hypocrisy, therefore, necessarily governs the ideas of Marcusé, and he thus makes the worst of all possible soul sicknesses into an institution.
Purpose of philosophy? To develop a theory of knowledge. This theory can then be applied to true scientific thinking in all its domains, such as psychology in the study and critique of society and the individual; economics; history; biology; physics; astronomy, forensics, rules of evidence, etc. Without such a theory, all attempts to explain phenomena are mere baseless claims or wishful thinking with no theoretical validity.
He says Nazis should have been suppressed is oart of trying to distance his communism from that left-wing movement, which are in face basically the same thing. That's a lie that has been around far too long.
This is why I can't get into Marcuse. He really is the godfather of today's left. Like i can read Horkheimer and Adorno and agree with a lot even where I disagree I can say wow that's a good point. I like that. I find it a lot harder with Marcuse. He just oozes what today we call hipsterism even when talking about his own work "oh Eros is much better"... classic "dirt bag" leftist bullshit. The stuff I do agree with comes from Horkheimer or Hegel or Freud or Marx and Engles themselves. If u got rid of the accent and added a silver pony tail the dude would be identical to any random west coast liberal arts professor. Whine whine whine, but no damn solution. When u actively try to find some in his work or even his interviews u get vague references to violent revolution. So that's all I'm left with... or vague references about Marxian democratic revolution. Yeah, I'm still waiting on Bernie Sanders. Let me tell yall something AOC isn't gonna be the one to do it. The whole demsoc movement was bought by the bourgeoisie wholesale. It ain't happening. Any concessions u get under these fucking people, these goddamn coastal intellectuals and their cronies is going to be social democracy repackaged. U think the libertarians are bought and paid off but at least they realize u need strong and free individuals to form the basis of community. Which we just don't have. Not this generation, this generation weighted down with their rugrats nostalgia and purple fucking hair.
I can't help it - but, when one opens a discussion on the nature of philosophy, with: For me.......I turn it off. I have never been able to accept any subjective interpretation of the purpose and/or nature of philosophy. This is particularly repulsive to me, especially, when said "interpreter" holds a "philosophical" position that espouses any doctrine of radicalism or is tainted by revolutionary tendencies.
![Rick Roderick on Marcuse - One-Dimensional Man [full length]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/WNAKr1TQ0xc/mqdefault.jpg)
I love how she ends the interview ascribing a certain opinion to her audience - that of disagreeing with Marcuse, seeking to modulate it to the constraints of a hegemonic position, in place of solely presenting the content and allowing them to draw their own conclusions, thereby clearly exemplifying the criticism put forth by Marcuse and the Frankfurt School in respect to the cultural industry.
Marcuse as an unclear writer? Reason and Revolution explained Hegel so clearly to me, that it catipulted my interest in not only studying him and Kant, but motivating me to learn German.
yeah he's an unbelievably lucid conveyer of ideas
Omniscient 1 so, did you come to that conclusion before or after you (didn’t) read his stuff?
well done, Marcuse and Habermas....maybe the last Mohicans of that great tradition of German philosophers
@@miropribanic5581 Habermas is really not
To " Pearlman Fredy : YOU were able to understand Hegel, by reading Marcuse ???-------Well, I congratulate you; I tried-----yes, I did, but I found Professor Marcuse just as unclear, & impossible to understand in any systematic way, as I did Hegel.-------HEGEL ! OMG !! ---------Impossible. -------------And, I tried, I really did. -----------As a college student in the late 60's, early 70's, I found the novels & poems of Hermann Hesse to be far more entertaining, & even if you will, " meaningful". ---------Between Herr Hesse, & Dr Victor Frankel's works , I found intellectual challenge & reward ; with Hegel, Marx, & Marcuse, it was only confusion--- with entire paragraphs & chapters, wholly impossible to understand. That said, I will say, THOSE WERE, the days, My friend., & we thought they'd never --------ever-------end.--------------------------Wolfsky9, 73 y/o
The interviewer is Helen Hawkins, not HawkinXgXs: "Helen S. Hawkins, Ph.D., was a producer & host of KPBS humanities programs, an historian, co-founder and first president of San Diego National Organization for Women, and publications director for the Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation. ... In the late 1970s Dr. Hawkins joined KPBS television as Executive Producer of Humanities programming. During her 6 years there she produced more than 100 television programs, many of which focus on women's rights and issues of the time. Her work received an Emmy and a silver gavel from the American Bar Association."
I wonder why previous commenters Peter Pam and Keith Yohai get so upset and angry and frustrated listening to someone who sees deficits in society and tries to correct them. Their comments seem so out of proportion to me, why so defensive??
Harold Marcuse Thanks.
The question is: defensive for whom? I live in Brazil, where for 13 years, they tried to establish a society in the mold of the Frankfurt School and the only concrete result, besides one of the highest rates of violence mortality, was the election of an extreme right, which I do not like and I had to elect for lack of future. These theories cause marginal changes in developed economies, but in undeveloped countries they generate dysfunctional societies.
@@dakkar66 Bolsanero didn't ascend to power because of Marxism, Communism, Socialism or Marcuse. He ascended to power because of billions of dollars trickling down from the imperialist centers of capital starving out the economies who attempt to negate the aforementioned.
You didn't have to vote for him, nor anyone else. You could have taken the route of George Carlin, seen voting for the waste of time it is (at least under capitalism), and stayed home.
@@henryberrylowry9512 Well, you're partially right. Bolsonaro was elected because of the billions of dollars, but the billions stolen by a leftist party that wanted to keep in power through electoral corruption.
And in Brazil, voting is mandatory. We can not stay at home. :(
@@dakkar66 This didn't age well did it? Lula is free and has been vindicated. Vile reactionary fascists at the helm backed by the US and Israel.
A very insightful interview, before the rise of internet.
Marcuse passed away 3 months after this interview.
Yeah!!! Wish he kicked the bucket decades before.
@@danielgolus4600 Glad that your wishes don't mean shit.
not soon enough
Getting crisp roasting in hell next to his heroes Mao and Pol Pot no doubt.
@@danielgolus4600 You've probably never read a word of his actual work. Bet you've watched a lot of videos about 'cultural Marxism' though.
She is a very good interviewer
BEST!
April 25th, 1979, 3 months before he nonrepressively desublimated. 5:50 This is a key contradiction of Marxism: Marxism states that revolution is inevitable, however followers prompt revolution. Marcuse states that he just give facts, and the students realize from those facts they must revolt. His book should be called Irrational Man: an Autobiography .
Pompous narcissist is a better title
Delusional utopianism. This is how men go mad when God is ׳dead’
do you have a particular god in mind?
His eyes are very close together.
I love his interviewer!
A true hero of the 1970s. Died crazy young of cancer - terrible premature loss.
Utopia means ‘no place’
I did not know that. Apt, huh?
The original meaning of the word in it's original use in the text Utopia by Sir Thomas More actually meant "good place" the author even said so.
"In English, Utopia is pronounced the same as Eutopia (the latter word, in Greek Εὐτοπία [Eutopiā], meaning "good place," contains the prefix εὐ- [eu-], "good", with which the οὔ of Utopia has come to be confused in the English pronunciation).[5] That is something that More himself addresses in an addendum to his book: Wherfore not Utopie, but rather rightely my name is Eutopie, a place of felicitie."
Full title "Utopia (Latin: Libellus vere aureus, nec minus salutaris quam festivus, de optimo rei publicae statu deque nova insula Utopia,[1] "A truly golden little book, not less beneficial than enjoyable, about how things should be in a state and about the new island Utopia")"
Which is fucking bizzare because the utopia he outlines was a fucked up patriarchal slave owning place that punished premarital sex.
Would have liked to hear more of his treatment of the idea of "surplus repression" as it relates to current discussions around big tech: selective deplatforming, cancel culure, etc. Pressures from the government put on big tech as a form of surplus repression in the public square. Coaxing the currrent progeny of the "New Left" of Marcuse's time into being cheerleaders for this "surplus repression." Marcuse does indeed admit here that there has always been violence, and that counter-violence is the only acceptable form of violence. Are not these repressive, stifling actions of big tech the same repressive, violent acts in a different form? And although the form of repression is different, the function is certainly the same: to silence the opposition with one hand and to use the other to write shallow justifications of their hypocrisy without admitting to the hypocrisy. And without publicly owning their own violence (repression).
I have always been interested in Marcuse since I read "The Making of a Counterculture" before going to the university. But aligning him directly with the hypocrisy of a power discourse which serves itself to conceal its own violence within accusations of systemic racism, a demand for "equity" over "equality," pushing the narrative of "rampant" police brutality, etc. is deceptive.
Marcuse would be on the side of big tech today.
Yet, defined as leftist in favor of democracy
Still very relevant, maybe even more so. 🌈🦉
Definitely more relevant, unfortunately
"someone who takes a free and democratic society seriously". if that's a marxist i guess that's me.
No. There’s absolutely no way you can classify Marxists as people who, “Take a free and democratic society seriously.” Bite your tongue.
Im a Marxist and I hate liberal democracy. What I get out of Marxism is that it's counter revolutionary if anything
Funny, I strongly disagree with Marcuse on which of his books is better. He thinks Eros and Civilisation is better than One-Dimensional Man. Noooo way. One-Dimensional Man is his best one by far and one of the most important books in the 20th century, even though I have strong philosophical disagreements with him.
"Repressive tolerance" = p. c. Censorship
it's good to censor nazi scum.
emale03, you are too diplomatic, what Marcuse puts forth is pure tyrrany and totalitarianism. Remember that utopia=nowhere
Marcuse, another brilliant German thinker, who was wrong about just about everything.
Awesome , in the green and pleasant land of the English Countryside i salute your humour and accuracy
Another waffling bugger like marx never did a days work in his life and sponged a living telling all and sundry what was best for them , ponced off engels for a living and managed to look very well fed
The greeks ideal of a utopian society! Was governed by a philosoper king. Marcus Aurelius was a perfect type.
I love how advocates of societal projects are able to put the imposition of their ideas on everyone and the word "freedom" in the same sentence. A good society needs to be good for everyone, and what is good is relative to each individual and encompasses an infinity of factors. Every model of society is the imposition of one person's model on all others, and by definition, always carries the seed of totalitarianism. Not even Jesus had a recipe for society, just render to Caesar what is Caesar's. He just came to prepare souls for transcendence. Nothing more delusional than love and passion for a future society created in your own head from which you judge the present real world.
It’s not that we have a position that can prevent large scale inhumanity, as discussed here on the topic of tolerance that led to Nazism and WW2. It’s that the default stance that permits such inhumanity to expand, to begin with, is what’s at fault. Certainly we had a chance to circumvent the Nazi expansion - most prominently in 1936 with the coup by Franco, supported by Hitler and Mussolini. The British and French non-interventionist insistence, even after the aerial bombing of Guernica, is one strong evidence. It’s actually one of the reasons why Guernica is so prominent in modern European history.
Roger Scruton criticized leftist philosophers well
Fast Forward to Chris Hedges & Cornel West 2023... 😉
read my green fire tommy & ruthie's blues amazon
Rewind to Lenin, Stalin and Mao
Marcuse just turned over in his grave.
@@ADAMSIXTIES I wish he'd got up and come back, Adam, and bequeathed his resting place to NERO-Liberalism. 😎👺😵💫
🤔(Green Fire, UK.)🌈🦉Best Wishes, Geoff Nelson Hill, author, IngramSpark.
I so agree with him - dissent is tolerated only to the degree where it is not disruptive to any society. And conformity is oppressive, without a doubt.
sounds like 60s stuff. we're 50 years beyond that now.
You fail to realize that left-wing "conformity" that we have today - in which you are to be destroyed if you disagree with their extreme one-sided view - is FAR more oppressive, without a doubt!
preconditions for any functional and moderately stable society
conformity to what?
as an example: you could conform to Marcuse's ideas. would that be oppressive?
Sit back, kick off your shoes, roll up a banana skin, click newest first, and enjoy the 13-year-old commentators who don’t even watch the video.
I was about to say something along the same lines, but you got there first. Damn it. I wanted all the credit for being both insightful and witty. But, you should get the gold ring ... this time. Try not to hog all the glory. That would just be rude. 🤨
I wish I could get with a group of openminded people who actually want to problem solve and revolutionize. like, what strategies, ideas, images, words can we create that will entice the public to act in counter-violence against the system and the death drive. how can we bring attention to to this so that people can weigh their minds and actually come to a critical conclusion that revolt is the only key to freedom?
Get a job.
Go to Venezuela. Go to Cuba. Jest get the H out of here.
Yes, I think there is a shortage of invested explorative debate these days. But the best thing we can do about is try to seize the initiative for such debates ourselves!
Western leftists are too mentally ill and economically comfortable to actually do anything
@@ricardocima 😂😂😂😂
Peaceful revolution is Bitcoin
LOL.
“I’m sure many Americans would disagree with many of your views if not all of them…” Really? That’s what she ends the interview with? She got her last little nasty-gram in before they go off the air. How unprofessional… and inaccurate.
Watch a pompous man child absolve himself of any accountability
what a BIG CUDDLY BEAR i love when i find out the people i read are actually lovely
WTF? There's nothing "lovely" about this despicable jerk. If I was there I'd smash his "lovely" face in for all the extreme left-wing brainwashing damage he's done.
@@danielgolus4600 glad to know the right wing can’t come up with an argument and must rely on violence
@@diego67hd94 yeah unlike Antifa 😂
@@carrollshipley3874 still can’t believe antifa were allowed to riot at our nation’s capital, those geniuses were antifa right????
@@diego67hd94 errr... have you understood his repressive tolerance?
I don’t like her tone; I feel that it doesn’t stimulate the debate, despite of her intelligence. Marcuse deserves a more open and empathetic approach, as he has more to offer.
You can expose a liar and a hypocrite when they say they want freedom through violence.
Because slaves gain freedom from nicely and politely asking the master right?
Freedom is not always given and that freedom you enjoy today is not given peaceful matter. A slave and oppressed people can hardly get liberty and freedom through ‘peace’ they have to fight for it. Stop being a naive idiot.
I believe she foresaw the "snake egg".
‘The rejection of capitalism may never have huge realworld consequences. “We should ditch capitalism, and try a
socialist alternative” may well be the political equivalent of
“One day, I will learn a foreign language, run a marathon, and
write a novel”. It may be an idea that is popular as an abstract
aspiration, but less so as a concrete action plan’ (p.17).
Unfortunately, this is fair comment.
However, there will be some significance that, amongst
younger people today, capitalism has become a ‘bad word’:
‘Young people associate “socialism” predominantly with
positive terms, such as “workers”, “public”, “equal” and “fair”.
(...) Capitalism, meanwhile, is predominantly associated
with terms such as “exploitative”, “unfair”, “the rich” and
“corporations”’ (p.7)
That can’t be a bad thing.
ADAM BUICK
Marcuse - the pavemaker for identity socialism. Thumbs down!
This man was a subversive and destructive monster.
of the very best kind
Yep, that's why he like him.
Yes, and what he wanted to destroy is well worth destroying!
To want to subvert and destroy oppressive forces is highly admirable in my opinion.
@@9000ck : yeah that sounds sexy but hierarchies will exist no matter what. power doesn't necessarily equate to oppression.
If you have no tolerance for intolerence, then you have to count yourself among the targets of your intolerence. Hypocrisy, therefore, necessarily governs the ideas of Marcusé, and he thus makes the worst of all possible soul sicknesses into an institution.
he seems such a sweetheart here
I want to smash-in his "sweetheart" face in!
The Russian revolution of 1917 was not violent. The Eisenstein movie of the storming of the winter palace was not based on fact.
He was a gov asset
One of the most evil people in history
You are free to dislike Marcuse as much you you'd like, but I also recommend reading more history.
@@stopmakingeyesatme1290 yeah yeah - I read the entire New Left, Frankfurt School, etc etc - it’s mostly degenerate garbage
I prefer Rothbard and Hoppe
Purpose of philosophy? To develop a theory of knowledge. This theory can then be applied to true scientific thinking in all its domains, such as psychology in the study and critique of society and the individual; economics; history; biology; physics; astronomy, forensics, rules of evidence, etc.
Without such a theory, all attempts to explain phenomena are mere baseless claims or wishful thinking with no theoretical validity.
He says Nazis should have been suppressed is oart of trying to distance his communism from that left-wing movement, which are in face basically the same thing. That's a lie that has been around far too long.
communist claptrap;
capitalism has won, get over it.
Wokeness won, Marcuse won.
@@JoseSantos-kc6om dream on, Jose!
More like a nightmare, but I like your optimism
@@JoseSantos-kc6om hell is a long way down.
The lack of a wider view leading to the delusion of permanency as usual.
This is why I can't get into Marcuse. He really is the godfather of today's left. Like i can read Horkheimer and Adorno and agree with a lot even where I disagree I can say wow that's a good point. I like that.
I find it a lot harder with Marcuse. He just oozes what today we call hipsterism even when talking about his own work "oh Eros is much better"... classic "dirt bag" leftist bullshit.
The stuff I do agree with comes from Horkheimer or Hegel or Freud or Marx and Engles themselves. If u got rid of the accent and added a silver pony tail the dude would be identical to any random west coast liberal arts professor.
Whine whine whine, but no damn solution. When u actively try to find some in his work or even his interviews u get vague references to violent revolution. So that's all I'm left with... or vague references about Marxian democratic revolution. Yeah, I'm still waiting on Bernie Sanders. Let me tell yall something AOC isn't gonna be the one to do it. The whole demsoc movement was bought by the bourgeoisie wholesale. It ain't happening. Any concessions u get under these fucking people, these goddamn coastal intellectuals and their cronies is going to be social democracy repackaged.
U think the libertarians are bought and paid off but at least they realize u need strong and free individuals to form the basis of community. Which we just don't have. Not this generation, this generation weighted down with their rugrats nostalgia and purple fucking hair.
💯 this ^
Exactly. Thank you, Juan McCoy. This idea of human perfectability is just so much sophist masturbation.
Marcuse a Man of inconsistent ideas conducting young people to the Abism...
Ken Able maybe you are just a stupid Marcuse follower, or Dunnin- Krugger is just your ass..
fascist idiot detected.
I can't help it - but, when one opens a discussion on the nature of philosophy, with: For me.......I turn it off. I have never been able to accept any subjective interpretation of the purpose and/or nature of philosophy. This is particularly repulsive to me, especially, when said "interpreter" holds a "philosophical" position that espouses any doctrine of radicalism or is tainted by revolutionary tendencies.