7:50 Work and consumption 11:00 Free time 13:45 Escaping our world 19:30 True art 20:00 Standardization 21:00 Music 24:00 Life is not a movie 25:50 Writing 26:45 What can an average person do? 27:20 art 27:30 cycle of oppression
But there are many SJW Marxists, so I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Perhaps if some Socialists/Marxists/whatever could articulate their viewpoints better, like the presenter did in this video, they'd have less of a bad rap.
There's an idea that part of this episode reminded me of. In a work called The Technological Society, Jacques Ellul makes an argument that the drive for efficiency is totalitarian, and removes any semblance of free choice for anyone in terms of production. You either adapt new technological innovations to be as efficient as possible and keep up with competition, or you perish as everyone else races ahead. In essence, there is only an illusion of choice, leaving only life instead of suicide, maintaining a process of feeding into the technoindustrial hegemony over human life. This is only one idea from one of Ellul's works, but he is a remarkable thinker. I would love to see you get into some of his ideas one day
10:00 As a student I am studying to become one of those designers on high. The comment on products designed only for mass consumption is only partially true. Around the same time as the frankfurt school, there was the bauhaus school who fled tyranical facist rule, and spread a lot of views on how to design, responsibly, ethically, and with an acknowledgement of our place in the world as a whole. While not maybe a pure philosophy, it might be a fun topic to explore.
Yes, definitely. Many art movements appeared to be antagonist towards capatalist ideology/mass consumption upon their inception. But as some critics from the Frankfurt school (and later post-structuralists) point out, capitalism is uniquely strong in subsuming these antagonisms and reappropriating them. Look at the proliferation of Diego Rivera/Frida Khalo products nowadays, two staunch communists during their lives. Punk rock products is now sold in shopping malls. Dada art is sold at high prices in auctions, etc.
I think the brief reference to Harry Potter outlines a really interesting disagreement between Adorno and Horkheimer on one side and someone like Jordan Peterson on the other. What Peterson would say in regard to the success of not only the Harry Potter franchise, but also of these superhero movies and (to some degree, science fiction), is that those stories are so appealing because they connect us with archetypal truths about human existence. It is not that we want to escape the world we are in today and immerse ourselves with these stories in order to forget the horrors of working life under capitalism, but because there is this deeper meaning that connects us to these stories. That would be the archetype of Carl Jung. What Jung described was this 'collective intelligence' which consists of layers and layers of stories that shape our understanding of reality, like meta-truths or hyper-truths. And they are embodied by all sorts of people within stories, from religious stories to more modern approaches like Harry Potter. Potter, the hero, speaks truth into being and does what is right through sacrifice. He is the pinnacle of the archetypal meta-truth. What you see when you look at these ideas is at how many different levels you can analyze them. I believe that this Marxist conceptualization is certainly thought provoking and to some extent also useful, but it does not do justice to the connection we have with stories and art in a more general sense. There are aspects of art that speak to us in a deeper sense, something in the unconscious. That should be noted more often when talking about cultural artifacts in Marxist theory and critical theory.
"...that those stories are so appealing because they connect us with archetypal truths about human existence." ..."It is not that we want to escape the world we are in today and immerse ourselves with these stories in order to forget the horrors of working life under capitalism, but because there is this deeper meaning that connects us to these stories." why cant both ideas be right? i think he touched on this with his example of the walking dead- he said it was appealing because it does speak to a fundamental need/desire that most humans have but that we are lacking in our capitalist society- our need to connect with others. and this connection is what occurs as a result of the zombie apocalypse. under capitalism, peoples fundamental needs/desires (such as the desire "to connect with our archetypal truths" , or feel that our lives have meaning or an Arch, or our desire to escape our mechanized lives to a world of magic) are exploited to sell products. yes, the products do speak to us (we "connect with our archetypal truths") but they are ultimately forms of escapism because nothing changes from it. have you started a revolution after watching the walking dead or harry potter? or do these shows just pacify us by giving us a facade of meaning (the zombie survivors form deep bonds, and harry overcomes evil and saves the world) so that we can go back to our meaningless isolated drudgery the next day?
I think mass media merely (be by accident or studying) discovered this jungian archetypes and decides to "brand them" and market them for mass consumption. It's not rare for capitalism to be able to absorb or even integrate into it's clock even the most profound ideas humanity developed (like greek myths turned into hollywood blockbusters), and even things that "oppose it" (and that's how you end with comercial punk, and Karl Marx t-shirts at Hot Topic).
The hero archetype is nothing more than the inability for humans to accept the reality of death. The desire to be a "hero" is compelled by a desire to create a self-centered immortality project to mitigate that terror. Peterson should know. I don't know if I have ever seen a psychologist so unaware of his own repression.
@@gofoucaultspendulumyoursel3496 if stories didn't have "good endings" they would. But that's considered against story-writing rules, and makes audiences angry
Alot of people in the comments seem to be expressing the same individualist attitude that comes with alienation, further fueled by neo Liberal myth of individual entrepreneurship paving the way for success and fulfillment (despite the fact you need a massive excess of capital to even stand a chance in the 'free market') The point Marx makes is that due to capitalism divide and conquer model is that the workers have little to no say in the material conditions of their work (espicailly working hours and job security) , and with globalisation the source of this exploitation taking the form of faceless multinational corporations (Musk, bezos, gates seemingly being omniscient figures evading tax like vampires to sunlight) the prevailing ideological antagonisms between the 99% slow or prevent any meaningful revolution from taking shape
This episode was rather interesting, actually. Well, they all are, but this one really got me. Before listening to this, I believed religion was some big antagonistic force that should be gotten rid of. But this made me beg the question "do we need religion after all?" I personally value the truth pretty highly, but as you've said, we only need knowledge to serve some purpose. Otherwise it's pointless. So what's the harm of a few lies, if they give meaning to our life? Life is objectively meaningless anyway. What's it matter? Also what you said about consumerism, and work. Really put into perspective how our society is all that great as it's made out to be at times. Every once in a while, I like to think of ways of creating a utopian society. Though every time so far I've had a hard time thinking if a good way. I had the idea of a society where there wasn't anyone in control, but that left gaps for people to use and abuse others. Now that doesn't seem like any sort of good society. After watching this, I'm starting to think that, perhaps there is no possible utopia we could reach. P.S. I may have mixed up the last two episodes into this, as I have been bingeing them. My points still stand regardless, even if I wasn't right about it all being specifically this episode. P.P.S. I've been thinking of making a web series here in RUclips about philosophy and science, and exploring different ideas and getting to the bottom of it all. Some of what you've said here, and what I've said for that matter, may just make it into an episode.
Working for survival and luxury isn't unique to capitalism though, nor is the draw towards fantasy and other escapist tendencies. People have been making up stories for 10s of thousands of years, through every form of society.
The Black Parade Memories Two songs that are based on Pachelbel’s Cannon in D. Same chord progression. It’s sad that art is becoming so tarnished by the system…
Hey. I thought I left a message here about an interest in some sort of local event in Seattle, but I don't see it now. Have you considered having live events in Seattle?
At 21:00 he compares tangible engineering advancements (car and iphone) to 'art'.. When a 2016 gps objectively works better than its non-existent counterpart in the unmapped world of the 1700s, but there's no objective standard for the quality or value of art.. A musician can be objectively skilled in technique, or a piece may be objectively complex.. A painter may acheive hyper realism.. But in the subjective world of art, all that is ultimately irrelevant.
I would say you can judge the originality and complexity of a piece "good" might be subjective but there are some objective measurable quality in all art forms I can think of. That doesn't mean every single person will hate it but it probably won't be popular or at least not for a prolonged period.
@@somynamesrobbieparker1413 There's no way to have an objective standard for art because art is not a fundamental feature of the universe. Let's look at stories - laiden with archetypes and tropes that have been used and reused for 1000s of years. The ones that stand out throughout time as "classics" are the ones that follow the Hero's Journey, have a quick climax, and a "feel good" resolution. Star Wars, Naruto, the Odyssey... Most of humanity responds positively to these stories. Does this mean that these archetypes and the stories that follow them are objectively good? Most people in the world love pop music. Does this mean pop music is the closest genre to being objectively good? At best, our standard for "objective good" is "what the majority of people like."
So what's stopping you from getting off the grid and live in a communal village like the Amnish? You could be a hero and dig all the water wells and sewage holes by hand.
I don't understand why it's wrong so do work you're not connected to? Every job in this world cannot have meaning and not everyone can afford to do a job they like. We cannot live without labour intensive work in this generation.
Adorno is bad ass but his work can be hard af to read. Kiss the sky has translated the text into urban dialects and memes to make his work easier to read. Find it here docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/9fb38e_d6d1639a1f35488383eb80129309dcdc.pdf
Secondarily, if given all the opportunity to do whatever we want, most of the population would do nothing and a small few would actually be creative or do things just for the sake of learning, art, etc.
Johan Doah I think he touched this in the episode, but quickly discarded this topic because he wants to talk about it in the next one. Also, he's right: you (and us all) think like this because of our deep cultural influence and personal habit of a capitalist lifestyle. The question now is: you raise a child in a non-capitalist country, will he be a total slacker, willing to just do nothing all day? Beware, Elon Musk said the universal base salary is the only future with how many jobs will be "eaten" by machines
Francesco Passero - They basically throw out evolutionary science and species norms. I am not even talking about humans exclusively in my example, all species work to sustain life and consume...it has nothing to do with societal influence.
Johan Doah then what will we do with our children? 10 billions people on this planet in 2050, and all jobs taken by robots. No drivers. No builders. No factory workers. It scares me, I find no answer
Francesco Passero History shows us, its not that simple. How many armorers do you know? Or Wheelwrights? Or coopers? These used to be common professions. Their professions were obsoleted by progress, but other professions rose to fill other niches that appeared. Things we never could have anticipated. Markets are always changing. The best thing we can do for our children is to show them how to stay adaptable and always improve themselves to be valuable.
I would have asked what makes Adorno's definition of art, "the definition". Also, Adorno seems to never have heard the phrase "nothing new under the sun".
This video is of very low quality in the criticism and evaluation ofAdorno and company and their contributions. When everyone of us discards these kinds videos, then we will have a chance to think logically instead. Goodby to this channel and you all.
The series about the Frankfurt school is among the best of your works. This episode especially. Thumbs up from an Italian supporter
ruclips.net/video/C7lhWp7G9rA/видео.html
@@vortex162 - dead link - , bro.
AMOG US
7:50 Work and consumption
11:00 Free time
13:45 Escaping our world
19:30 True art
20:00 Standardization
21:00 Music
24:00 Life is not a movie
25:50 Writing
26:45 What can an average person do?
27:20 art
27:30 cycle of oppression
This entire series has changed my outlook on the world/society/myself. Thank you very, very f-cking much mate.
This episodes of the Frankfurt School has depressed the shit out of me
well,at least no more constipation
it's so sad, but it's only sad cause it's true
Thank you so much. It's people like you that educate the world to end this madness about "da sjw Marxist" bs
But there are many SJW Marxists, so I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Perhaps if some Socialists/Marxists/whatever could articulate their viewpoints better, like the presenter did in this video, they'd have less of a bad rap.
@@nt6351 sjws might be socialists but socialists aren't sjws
I think this is my favorite episode of this podcast so far
There's an idea that part of this episode reminded me of. In a work called The Technological Society, Jacques Ellul makes an argument that the drive for efficiency is totalitarian, and removes any semblance of free choice for anyone in terms of production. You either adapt new technological innovations to be as efficient as possible and keep up with competition, or you perish as everyone else races ahead. In essence, there is only an illusion of choice, leaving only life instead of suicide, maintaining a process of feeding into the technoindustrial hegemony over human life.
This is only one idea from one of Ellul's works, but he is a remarkable thinker. I would love to see you get into some of his ideas one day
This episode is so good. Thank you!!
"Imagine if to walk the path of Christ you had to buy the sandals he was wearing." Haha nuts
10:00
As a student I am studying to become one of those designers on high.
The comment on products designed only for mass consumption is only partially true. Around the same time as the frankfurt school, there was the bauhaus school who fled tyranical facist rule, and spread a lot of views on how to design, responsibly, ethically, and with an acknowledgement of our place in the world as a whole.
While not maybe a pure philosophy, it might be a fun topic to explore.
Yes, definitely. Many art movements appeared to be antagonist towards capatalist ideology/mass consumption upon their inception. But as some critics from the Frankfurt school (and later post-structuralists) point out, capitalism is uniquely strong in subsuming these antagonisms and reappropriating them. Look at the proliferation of Diego Rivera/Frida Khalo products nowadays, two staunch communists during their lives. Punk rock products is now sold in shopping malls. Dada art is sold at high prices in auctions, etc.
I wish I could invite you to my Critical Theory class! Thanks for making you tube a place where people can think
Absolutely fantastic
ruclips.net/video/C7lhWp7G9rA/видео.html
I think the brief reference to Harry Potter outlines a really interesting disagreement between Adorno and Horkheimer on one side and someone like Jordan Peterson on the other. What Peterson would say in regard to the success of not only the Harry Potter franchise, but also of these superhero movies and (to some degree, science fiction), is that those stories are so appealing because they connect us with archetypal truths about human existence. It is not that we want to escape the world we are in today and immerse ourselves with these stories in order to forget the horrors of working life under capitalism, but because there is this deeper meaning that connects us to these stories. That would be the archetype of Carl Jung. What Jung described was this 'collective intelligence' which consists of layers and layers of stories that shape our understanding of reality, like meta-truths or hyper-truths. And they are embodied by all sorts of people within stories, from religious stories to more modern approaches like Harry Potter. Potter, the hero, speaks truth into being and does what is right through sacrifice. He is the pinnacle of the archetypal meta-truth.
What you see when you look at these ideas is at how many different levels you can analyze them. I believe that this Marxist conceptualization is certainly thought provoking and to some extent also useful, but it does not do justice to the connection we have with stories and art in a more general sense. There are aspects of art that speak to us in a deeper sense, something in the unconscious. That should be noted more often when talking about cultural artifacts in Marxist theory and critical theory.
"...that those stories are so appealing because they connect us with archetypal truths about human existence." ..."It is not that we want to escape the world we are in today and immerse ourselves with these stories in order to forget the horrors of working life under capitalism, but because there is this deeper meaning that connects us to these stories."
why cant both ideas be right?
i think he touched on this with his example of the walking dead-
he said it was appealing because it does speak to a fundamental need/desire that most humans have but that we are lacking in our capitalist society- our need to connect with others. and this connection is what occurs as a result of the zombie apocalypse.
under capitalism, peoples fundamental needs/desires (such as the desire "to connect with our archetypal truths" , or feel that our lives have meaning or an Arch, or our desire to escape our mechanized lives to a world of magic) are exploited to sell products. yes, the products do speak to us (we "connect with our archetypal truths") but they are ultimately forms of escapism because nothing changes from it.
have you started a revolution after watching the walking dead or harry potter? or do these shows just pacify us by giving us a facade of meaning (the zombie survivors form deep bonds, and harry overcomes evil and saves the world) so that we can go back to our meaningless isolated drudgery the next day?
I think mass media merely (be by accident or studying) discovered this jungian archetypes and decides to "brand them" and market them for mass consumption. It's not rare for capitalism to be able to absorb or even integrate into it's clock even the most profound ideas humanity developed (like greek myths turned into hollywood blockbusters), and even things that "oppose it" (and that's how you end with comercial punk, and Karl Marx t-shirts at Hot Topic).
The hero archetype is nothing more than the inability for humans to accept the reality of death. The desire to be a "hero" is compelled by a desire to create a self-centered immortality project to mitigate that terror. Peterson should know. I don't know if I have ever seen a psychologist so unaware of his own repression.
@@gofoucaultspendulumyoursel3496 if stories didn't have "good endings" they would. But that's considered against story-writing rules, and makes audiences angry
Alot of people in the comments seem to be expressing the same individualist attitude that comes with alienation, further fueled by neo Liberal myth of individual entrepreneurship paving the way for success and fulfillment (despite the fact you need a massive excess of capital to even stand a chance in the 'free market')
The point Marx makes is that due to capitalism divide and conquer model is that the workers have little to no say in the material conditions of their work (espicailly working hours and job security) , and with globalisation the source of this exploitation taking the form of faceless multinational corporations (Musk, bezos, gates seemingly being omniscient figures evading tax like vampires to sunlight) the prevailing ideological antagonisms between the 99% slow or prevent any meaningful revolution from taking shape
incredible work. great job!
I found this episode very funny with the discussion of boxes. And don't forget, when you die you go out in a box too!
This episode was rather interesting, actually. Well, they all are, but this one really got me. Before listening to this, I believed religion was some big antagonistic force that should be gotten rid of. But this made me beg the question "do we need religion after all?" I personally value the truth pretty highly, but as you've said, we only need knowledge to serve some purpose. Otherwise it's pointless. So what's the harm of a few lies, if they give meaning to our life? Life is objectively meaningless anyway. What's it matter?
Also what you said about consumerism, and work. Really put into perspective how our society is all that great as it's made out to be at times. Every once in a while, I like to think of ways of creating a utopian society. Though every time so far I've had a hard time thinking if a good way. I had the idea of a society where there wasn't anyone in control, but that left gaps for people to use and abuse others. Now that doesn't seem like any sort of good society. After watching this, I'm starting to think that, perhaps there is no possible utopia we could reach.
P.S. I may have mixed up the last two episodes into this, as I have been bingeing them. My points still stand regardless, even if I wasn't right about it all being specifically this episode.
P.P.S. I've been thinking of making a web series here in RUclips about philosophy and science, and exploring different ideas and getting to the bottom of it all. Some of what you've said here, and what I've said for that matter, may just make it into an episode.
This helps me alot at my studying habit.
Working for survival and luxury isn't unique to capitalism though, nor is the draw towards fantasy and other escapist tendencies. People have been making up stories for 10s of thousands of years, through every form of society.
The Black Parade
Memories
Two songs that are based on Pachelbel’s Cannon in D.
Same chord progression.
It’s sad that art is becoming so tarnished by the system…
A fast food worker might understand this alienation (maybe).
In a high school Lit class, I was taught that there were only three stories:
Man v God, Man v Man & Man v Nature.
The audio is kind of low. I'm on full blast and can barely listen.
Hey. I thought I left a message here about an interest in some sort of local event in Seattle, but I don't see it now. Have you considered having live events in Seattle?
At 21:00 he compares tangible engineering advancements (car and iphone) to 'art'.. When a 2016 gps objectively works better than its non-existent counterpart in the unmapped world of the 1700s, but there's no objective standard for the quality or value of art.. A musician can be objectively skilled in technique, or a piece may be objectively complex.. A painter may acheive hyper realism.. But in the subjective world of art, all that is ultimately irrelevant.
I would say you can judge the originality and complexity of a piece "good" might be subjective but there are some objective measurable quality in all art forms I can think of. That doesn't mean every single person will hate it but it probably won't be popular or at least not for a prolonged period.
@@somynamesrobbieparker1413 There's no way to have an objective standard for art because art is not a fundamental feature of the universe. Let's look at stories - laiden with archetypes and tropes that have been used and reused for 1000s of years. The ones that stand out throughout time as "classics" are the ones that follow the Hero's Journey, have a quick climax, and a "feel good" resolution. Star Wars, Naruto, the Odyssey... Most of humanity responds positively to these stories. Does this mean that these archetypes and the stories that follow them are objectively good? Most people in the world love pop music. Does this mean pop music is the closest genre to being objectively good? At best, our standard for "objective good" is "what the majority of people like."
the amazon banner :P
I love you
add transcript plz
So what's stopping you from getting off the grid and live in a communal village like the Amnish? You could be a hero and dig all the water wells and sewage holes by hand.
I don't understand why it's wrong so do work you're not connected to? Every job in this world cannot have meaning and not everyone can afford to do a job they like. We cannot live without labour intensive work in this generation.
what's the point of life if you're just workinng to house and feed yourself? Humans find meaning in their labor.
1984
19:00 "it should ... it should ... it should ..." is this an it should according to the frankfurts or you, and why?
Adorno is bad ass but his work can be hard af to read. Kiss the sky has translated the text into urban dialects and memes to make his work easier to read. Find it here docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/9fb38e_d6d1639a1f35488383eb80129309dcdc.pdf
just put yourself in the position of a mayor and how you would handle all ur towns problems while steering towards a goal, that's all they are
Foucault?
# TBC would be an excellent series.
The problem with their argument is that naturally every species is about work (sustaining life) and consumption (entropy).
Secondarily, if given all the opportunity to do whatever we want, most of the population would do nothing and a small few would actually be creative or do things just for the sake of learning, art, etc.
Johan Doah I think he touched this in the episode, but quickly discarded this topic because he wants to talk about it in the next one. Also, he's right: you (and us all) think like this because of our deep cultural influence and personal habit of a capitalist lifestyle. The question now is: you raise a child in a non-capitalist country, will he be a total slacker, willing to just do nothing all day?
Beware, Elon Musk said the universal base salary is the only future with how many jobs will be "eaten" by machines
Francesco Passero - They basically throw out evolutionary science and species norms. I am not even talking about humans exclusively in my example, all species work to sustain life and consume...it has nothing to do with societal influence.
Johan Doah then what will we do with our children? 10 billions people on this planet in 2050, and all jobs taken by robots. No drivers. No builders. No factory workers. It scares me, I find no answer
Francesco Passero History shows us, its not that simple. How many armorers do you know? Or Wheelwrights? Or coopers? These used to be common professions. Their professions were obsoleted by progress, but other professions rose to fill other niches that appeared. Things we never could have anticipated. Markets are always changing. The best thing we can do for our children is to show them how to stay adaptable and always improve themselves to be valuable.
I would have asked what makes Adorno's definition of art, "the definition".
Also, Adorno seems to never have heard the phrase "nothing new under the sun".
I'm just not sure how people who have seen space ships and the internet can use the phrase "nothing new under the sun" unironically.
LOL, a bunch of commis here!
This video is of very low quality in the criticism and evaluation ofAdorno and company and their contributions. When everyone of us discards these kinds videos, then we will have a chance to think logically instead. Goodby to this channel and you all.
How so? May you elaborate?
incredible work. great job!
ruclips.net/video/C7lhWp7G9rA/видео.html