-
Scarmoge posted an update 5 years, 1 month ago
… on Marcuse … we should also not forget the effects of the rest of The Frankfurt School gang and their disciples …
-
Sadly, I am not a subscriber and shall never know what happens to that 20-something seeking adventurers and the skull of Genghis Khan.
-
In ’17, we hosted an academic panel called Circumventing the Frankfurt School with Kmac, Ricardo Duschesne, Tom Sunic & Propertarian founder Curt Doolittle. We thought we’d have a little fun hosting it at NYU: https://youtu.be/9FA6LOqipBM
-
Thank you Cylon8Meg.
-
-
Marcuse, and Adorno…ugh…
-
Nor should we forget under what auspices they were brought here, and for what purpose, and which University they took up residence in, And while we’re at it, and on a related question, what DID the OSS (Later The CIA) want with all those Anthropologists anyway. For answers see the titles: 1. Cold War Anthropology (2011) and 2. Weaponizing Anthropology (2016) By David H Price.
-
When I think of The Frankfurt “School” I always think of who was likely their Patron Saint, Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci is the true root of what we now call, “Cultural Marxism”.
-
… we also shouldn’t forget that many streams flow into the river of our most recent unpleasantness … even something like disagreements concerning the foundations of mathematics … for a quick and dirty account of such a thing see Vladimir Tasic’s – Mathematics and the Roots of Postmodern Thought, Oxford University Press, 2001.
-
I am learning ideas can be quite toxic.
-
-
-
What is “tricky” about the Frankfurt School is that their critiques were often quite apt (e.g., fascism, power and the authorizers of power, high/mid/low culture, social construction, economics, Hegel, Marx, etc.) Their intellectual capacity was obviously profound, this cannot be denied. Marcuse, for example, may have been cynical, even psychotic at times, but to say that he was a fool would be technically misleading. The same goes for Adorno, Horkheimer, and Lukacs. This can also be said of Gramsci, undoubtedly, and even the somewhat later, Foucault. This also applies to those who would come in their wake (e.g., D. Bell (in certain regards), Delgado, and even, God help me, Coates, Kendi, Crenshaw, and DiAngelo.)) All of these people were/are critiquing what deserves to be critiqued. The problem, as it’s often said, is that their social diagnoses may be apt, but their prescriptions are, well, not so good. The last thing we want to be is intellectually cynical towards these professional Cynics, as it will limit our ability to be effectively rhetorical and cause us to look just as ideologically inflexible as the rest.
-
The Giza Forum (Legacy)
Closed Archive of The Old Forum
