Scan barcode
psinoza's review against another edition
2.0
kitapta tek bir fikir var. bu fikir, farklı olgular yardımıyla beş farklı başlık altında tekrar tekrar açıklanıyor. Metin, bir süre sonra kendisini tekrar etmeye ve okurunu yormaya başlıyor. Orhan Koçak'ın yazdığı önsöz de yaklaşık kitabın yarısı kadar. Bu kadar abartılı bir önsöz yazıp frankfurt okulu'na giriş dersi vermeye gerek var mıydı bilmiyorum.
jacoboner's review against another edition
5.0
Bunalım...Disiplinlerin gerçek anlamda sürüklendikleri akıl tutulmalarından yaşadıkları bunalım. Karşı mevzilerde olmak, çatışmalı, tamamen farklı olgulardan bahsetmek, konvansiyonel olmayan tutumlar, disiplinleri aynı akıl tutulmalarından alıkoyamamıştır. Sular onları farklı ırmaklardan akıtarak aynı göle taşımıştır ve bir arada olduklarını görmek mümkün...Genele baktığımda ortaya çıkarabildiğim hakim olan tematik durum budur. Sebebi doğallığındaMax Horkheimer ve Okulu olan Frankfurt okulu'nun ortaya koyduğu temel teori, Eleştiri Teorisidir. Bu okul bir diğer anlamda tüm disiplinler ( Felsefe Okulları veya Teorileri) üzerinde, kritik etme görevini üstlenmiş, benim fark edebildiğim kadarıyla, disiplinlerin daha çok ortaya çıkış noktasına değil, bu disiplinlerin diğerleri ile giriştikleri ideolojik çatışmalardan doğan sonuçlar üzerinden eleştiri teorisi geliştirmişlerdir.
Kitabın giriş kısmında çevirisi ile Orhan Koçak, yaklaşık elli sayfalık bir önsöz ile bize Max Horkheimer ve Frankfurt Okulu hakkında detaylı bilgi vermiştir.Önsöz ile bu okul hakkında detaylı bilgiye ulaşmış oluyoruz.
Okulun Marksizm, Marksist kurumlar ile ve ayrıca kendi içindeki hesaplaşmaları da açıkça öğrenmiş oluyoruz.
Kitap içerisinde düşünsel yaşamda araçlar-amaçlar, öznel-nesnel akıl paradokslarını detaylı görebiliriz. Bununla birlikte; bize önerilen reçetelerin kendi aralarındaki çatışmalarını, tehlikeli düşünsel süreçlerin doğa içerisindeki biyolojik sistemleri kullanışı, dolayısıyla bunlar karşısında bireyin yükselişi aynı zamanda düşüşü ilginizi çekebilir.
Modernitenin bilinci nerelere kadar sürükleyebileceğini ve bizler üzerindeki tahakkümünden dolayı bedenimizin, zihnimizin, sosyal yapımızın ve bir çok alanımız ile araçsallaşmış görüntümüze ayna tutarak farkındanlığımıza yardımcı olmaktadır.
Direnen birey, doğruluğun gerekleriyle varoluşun akıl dışı niteliğini uzlaştırmaya yönelik her türlü pragmatik çabaya karşı çıkacaktır.s.133
Kitabın giriş kısmında çevirisi ile Orhan Koçak, yaklaşık elli sayfalık bir önsöz ile bize Max Horkheimer ve Frankfurt Okulu hakkında detaylı bilgi vermiştir.Önsöz ile bu okul hakkında detaylı bilgiye ulaşmış oluyoruz.
Okulun Marksizm, Marksist kurumlar ile ve ayrıca kendi içindeki hesaplaşmaları da açıkça öğrenmiş oluyoruz.
Kitap içerisinde düşünsel yaşamda araçlar-amaçlar, öznel-nesnel akıl paradokslarını detaylı görebiliriz. Bununla birlikte; bize önerilen reçetelerin kendi aralarındaki çatışmalarını, tehlikeli düşünsel süreçlerin doğa içerisindeki biyolojik sistemleri kullanışı, dolayısıyla bunlar karşısında bireyin yükselişi aynı zamanda düşüşü ilginizi çekebilir.
Modernitenin bilinci nerelere kadar sürükleyebileceğini ve bizler üzerindeki tahakkümünden dolayı bedenimizin, zihnimizin, sosyal yapımızın ve bir çok alanımız ile araçsallaşmış görüntümüze ayna tutarak farkındanlığımıza yardımcı olmaktadır.
Direnen birey, doğruluğun gerekleriyle varoluşun akıl dışı niteliğini uzlaştırmaya yönelik her türlü pragmatik çabaya karşı çıkacaktır.s.133
amralsayed0's review against another edition
4.0
This book needs to be reviewed in the context of the time it was published, namely after Horkheimer escaped Germany while it was under Hitler's rule. It's true that most of the book rings more true than ever today but parts of it now feel dated.
Horkheimer begins by making a distinction between subjective reason, the reasoning you use to reach a certain goal, and objective reason, the reasoning you use to question the virtue of the goal in and of itself. He then makes the argument that Western Philosophy has seen a shift towards the later. While I agree that this shift is happening and is all too clear today, I don't agree with Horkheimer's criticism of science that it's becoming too subjective and it only concerns itself with how to do something rather than if this something should be done at all. I believe that the institution of science should remain only concerned with subjective reason (the way Horkheimer defined it) as this seems to be the best way to acquire truth about the given that truth is our goal.
In Chapter 2, Horkheimer criticizes Positivism, Neo-Thomism and Pragmatism in great length. I agree with his criticisms of both Neo-Thomism and Pragmatism but when criticizing Positivism I found the argument ... unfulfilling. He argues that science, which positivists wholeheartedly embrace, can be used to do serve evil means and more over, in this capitalist world, science is only done to serve a producing entity or corporation and rarely for its own merit of finding out the truth. He then continues by criticizing the scientific method itself and pointing out it's limitations for finding the truth. What I find unfulfilling is that this view of science might have been spurred by the use of the first atomic bomb few years prior to the writing of the book. The picture might have been bleak then but it's certainly much better now though the positivists' philosophy still suffers from the same problems Horkheimer mentioned up until now albeit to a lesser degree.
As for Chapter 3, the image Horkheimer paint of the relationship between man and nature is both fascinating and bleak. He talks about the domination of man over nature and how nature is view as just a tool, the repression it breeds in man and the memetic nature of man that he uses to deal with this struggle.
Chapter 4 describes the effect of social injustice, culture, economics, mass culture and oppression on the individual. How all of this forces conformity until it becomes the norm and the individual instead of challenging that begins to form an interest in maintaining it. All of which are thoughts that we can identify with today.
It's a good, albeit philosophically dense and a bit hard to go through, book and you will find compelling critiques that are still relevant to our world today.
Horkheimer begins by making a distinction between subjective reason, the reasoning you use to reach a certain goal, and objective reason, the reasoning you use to question the virtue of the goal in and of itself. He then makes the argument that Western Philosophy has seen a shift towards the later. While I agree that this shift is happening and is all too clear today, I don't agree with Horkheimer's criticism of science that it's becoming too subjective and it only concerns itself with how to do something rather than if this something should be done at all. I believe that the institution of science should remain only concerned with subjective reason (the way Horkheimer defined it) as this seems to be the best way to acquire truth about the given that truth is our goal.
In Chapter 2, Horkheimer criticizes Positivism, Neo-Thomism and Pragmatism in great length. I agree with his criticisms of both Neo-Thomism and Pragmatism but when criticizing Positivism I found the argument ... unfulfilling. He argues that science, which positivists wholeheartedly embrace, can be used to do serve evil means and more over, in this capitalist world, science is only done to serve a producing entity or corporation and rarely for its own merit of finding out the truth. He then continues by criticizing the scientific method itself and pointing out it's limitations for finding the truth. What I find unfulfilling is that this view of science might have been spurred by the use of the first atomic bomb few years prior to the writing of the book. The picture might have been bleak then but it's certainly much better now though the positivists' philosophy still suffers from the same problems Horkheimer mentioned up until now albeit to a lesser degree.
As for Chapter 3, the image Horkheimer paint of the relationship between man and nature is both fascinating and bleak. He talks about the domination of man over nature and how nature is view as just a tool, the repression it breeds in man and the memetic nature of man that he uses to deal with this struggle.
Intellectually, modem man is less hypocritical than his forefathers of the nineteenth century who glossed over the materialistic practices of society by pious phrases about idealism. Today no one is taken in by this kind of hypocrisy. But this is not because the contradiction between high-sounding phrases and reality has been abolished. The contradiction has only become institutionalized. Hypocrisy has turned cynical; it does not even expect to be believed. The same voice that preaches about the higher things of life, such as art, friendship, or religion, exhorts the hearer to select a given brand of soap. Pamphlets on how to improve one's speech, how to understand music, how to be saved, are written in the same style as those extolling the advantages of laxatives. Indeed, one expert copywriter may have written any one of them. In the highly developed division of labor, expression has become an instrument used by technicians in the service of industry. A would-be author can go to a school and learn the many combinations that can be contrived from a list of set plots. These schemes have been coordinated to a certain degree with the requirements of other agencies of mass culture, particularly those of the film industry. A novel is written with its film possibilities in mind, a symphony or poem is composed with an eye to its propaganda value. Once it was the endeavor of art, literature, and philosophy to express the meaning of things and of life, to be the voice of all that is dumb, to endow nature with an organ for making known her sufferings, or, we might say, to call reality by its rightful name. Today nature’s tongue is taken away. Once it was thought that each utterance, word, cry, or gesture had an intrinsic meaning; today it is merely an occurrence.
Chapter 4 describes the effect of social injustice, culture, economics, mass culture and oppression on the individual. How all of this forces conformity until it becomes the norm and the individual instead of challenging that begins to form an interest in maintaining it. All of which are thoughts that we can identify with today.
It's a good, albeit philosophically dense and a bit hard to go through, book and you will find compelling critiques that are still relevant to our world today.
cinaedussinister's review against another edition
2.0
He presents a lot of arguments, all of which are wrong, and gives very little evidence for them. Well, he does give evidence, but this whole book is just one long non sequitur. Not very good.
johnclough's review against another edition
5.0
All reviews - https://jdcloughblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/09/max-horkheimer-eclipse-of-reason/
Horkheimer is my sort of thinker. He writes with the perfect combination of exceptional erudition and a burning passion that would make Nietzsche proud. The Eclipse of Reason is an unrelenting assault on the various disciplines that fall prey to what Horkheimer describes as subjective reason. That is, in brief, the reason by which the means for achieving predetermined or ‘self-evident’ ends, where objective reason is the testing of those ends. Horkheimer believes that virtually every element of society is suffering from the glorification of subjective reason as the only reason, which leads, he believes, to the inevitable descent into relativism, which in turn undermines the meanings of every action, and drags society kicking and screaming into a nihilistic abyss.
Indeed, there is not a lot of positivity to be found in Horkheimer’s writing; but this is to be expected from a work written by a German Jew in 1947. In Horkheimer’s view, expressed here and in The Dialectic of Enlightenment, WWII with it’s Holocaust and nuclear obliteration is the genuine culmination of the Enlightenment – the inevitable outcome of the rise and fall of reason. We placed our faith in science, and science repaid us in kind with the most ruthlessly effective means of wholesale destruction of human life ever imagined. This utterly destructive manifestation of our supposed “enlightenment” is the most stark, brutal, and painful testament to how lost we are as a species. It is in this context that Horkheimer writes; his continuing relevance suggests we are far from recovered from this nadir.
Horkheimer essentially believes that reason ate itself. In The Enlightenment it positioned itself – though not initially explicitly – as a challenger to the crown of religion as the leading source of cultural meaning-making. Calling on Weberian terminology, Horkheimer discusses how this lead to the world becoming increasingly demystified, the magic of the world was all being rationalised and explained away. As the philosophers and scientists who represent the clergy of the Church of Reason would have it, this demystification served to free humanity from irrational dogma and superstition – we have become Enlightened. Horkheimer suggests that, nice as this sounds, the rise of reason contained in its demystifying character the seed of its own downfall. By stripping the world of its magic – of its value-external-from-itself – reason accidentally denied the existence of any absolute values, truths, and meanings. Objective reason, in the hands of vastly influential sceptics such as Hume, sabotages itself by denying the existence of absolutes. Of course, Kant and so many who come after try to save this, but for Horkheimer, the damage has been done. In spite of Kant and others’ no doubt formidable input, meta-ethics – questions of what is good and bad – suffered throughout the 20th century and beyond with the blight of relativism, a startling inability to find fundamental justification for any view of the good without recourse either to the divine or to the ultimate replacement for ‘it is as God wills’: ‘it just is!’*
The result, for Horkheimer, is that as a society, we have given up on objective reason – it discredited religion and it discredited itself. To fill the void, reason itself falls prey to dogma: the belief that subjective reason, epitomised in the scientific method, somehow possesses universal truth. While most scientists today are more than aware of the profound limits of the scientific method (perhaps in part due to the awakening brought about by philosophical opposition to scientism), what’s key for Horkheimer is the way in which culture has made science its religion. This is science taken in a much broader meaning than simply the academic disciplines of the natural sciences. It’s perhaps better captured under the term positivism, which is the view that only that which is scientifically verifiable is worthy of consideration. This is an ideological perspective that remains relentlessly pervasive throughout academia and in society more broadly.
For me, Eclipse of Reason contained three key, interconnected elements of this positivistic outlook. The first is a discussion of positivism’s philosophical advocate – pragmatism. The second is an examination of this view and how it impacts our relationship to nature. Finally, Horkheimer views this outlook in terms of what it means for the individual. I would be writing for a long time if I were to go into detail regarding all of these elements. Needless to say, they add up to a quite merciless attack on dominant cultural values. For me personally, the most interesting element was the discussion around nature. Here he talks about how turning everything into means renders nature beyond its purpose to industry meaningless. This links to the subjugation of people’s own nature, which they must overcome in order to survive in society. I found this chapter profound and it links with a number of other important writings from the likes of Arendt and Heidegger to provide an important critique of our approach to nature. It’s perhaps more relevant in our time than ever.
Eclipse of Reason, then, is unfalteringly bleak in its outlook. Horkheimer masterfully and passionately diagnoses the sickness in our society, and his outlook is grim. This is perhaps a shortcoming – not only Horkheimer but many of those writing in the lose tradition of the Frankfurt School or critical theory – what use is diagnosis without a cure? It’s not an easy question to answer. Horkheimer and his like, however, exist as an absolutely essential foil to orthodox culture and theory. These are the kind of thinkers we need in order to know where we stand, to focus our minds in the right direction. For this, Horkheimer’s work is priceless.
*This isn’t to say there’s been no good ethics for the last 100 years or more. I found Løgstrup’s attempt at justifying kindness in phenomenological terms valiant. The issue is that reason throws into doubt any claim to the absolute.
Horkheimer is my sort of thinker. He writes with the perfect combination of exceptional erudition and a burning passion that would make Nietzsche proud. The Eclipse of Reason is an unrelenting assault on the various disciplines that fall prey to what Horkheimer describes as subjective reason. That is, in brief, the reason by which the means for achieving predetermined or ‘self-evident’ ends, where objective reason is the testing of those ends. Horkheimer believes that virtually every element of society is suffering from the glorification of subjective reason as the only reason, which leads, he believes, to the inevitable descent into relativism, which in turn undermines the meanings of every action, and drags society kicking and screaming into a nihilistic abyss.
Indeed, there is not a lot of positivity to be found in Horkheimer’s writing; but this is to be expected from a work written by a German Jew in 1947. In Horkheimer’s view, expressed here and in The Dialectic of Enlightenment, WWII with it’s Holocaust and nuclear obliteration is the genuine culmination of the Enlightenment – the inevitable outcome of the rise and fall of reason. We placed our faith in science, and science repaid us in kind with the most ruthlessly effective means of wholesale destruction of human life ever imagined. This utterly destructive manifestation of our supposed “enlightenment” is the most stark, brutal, and painful testament to how lost we are as a species. It is in this context that Horkheimer writes; his continuing relevance suggests we are far from recovered from this nadir.
Horkheimer essentially believes that reason ate itself. In The Enlightenment it positioned itself – though not initially explicitly – as a challenger to the crown of religion as the leading source of cultural meaning-making. Calling on Weberian terminology, Horkheimer discusses how this lead to the world becoming increasingly demystified, the magic of the world was all being rationalised and explained away. As the philosophers and scientists who represent the clergy of the Church of Reason would have it, this demystification served to free humanity from irrational dogma and superstition – we have become Enlightened. Horkheimer suggests that, nice as this sounds, the rise of reason contained in its demystifying character the seed of its own downfall. By stripping the world of its magic – of its value-external-from-itself – reason accidentally denied the existence of any absolute values, truths, and meanings. Objective reason, in the hands of vastly influential sceptics such as Hume, sabotages itself by denying the existence of absolutes. Of course, Kant and so many who come after try to save this, but for Horkheimer, the damage has been done. In spite of Kant and others’ no doubt formidable input, meta-ethics – questions of what is good and bad – suffered throughout the 20th century and beyond with the blight of relativism, a startling inability to find fundamental justification for any view of the good without recourse either to the divine or to the ultimate replacement for ‘it is as God wills’: ‘it just is!’*
The result, for Horkheimer, is that as a society, we have given up on objective reason – it discredited religion and it discredited itself. To fill the void, reason itself falls prey to dogma: the belief that subjective reason, epitomised in the scientific method, somehow possesses universal truth. While most scientists today are more than aware of the profound limits of the scientific method (perhaps in part due to the awakening brought about by philosophical opposition to scientism), what’s key for Horkheimer is the way in which culture has made science its religion. This is science taken in a much broader meaning than simply the academic disciplines of the natural sciences. It’s perhaps better captured under the term positivism, which is the view that only that which is scientifically verifiable is worthy of consideration. This is an ideological perspective that remains relentlessly pervasive throughout academia and in society more broadly.
For me, Eclipse of Reason contained three key, interconnected elements of this positivistic outlook. The first is a discussion of positivism’s philosophical advocate – pragmatism. The second is an examination of this view and how it impacts our relationship to nature. Finally, Horkheimer views this outlook in terms of what it means for the individual. I would be writing for a long time if I were to go into detail regarding all of these elements. Needless to say, they add up to a quite merciless attack on dominant cultural values. For me personally, the most interesting element was the discussion around nature. Here he talks about how turning everything into means renders nature beyond its purpose to industry meaningless. This links to the subjugation of people’s own nature, which they must overcome in order to survive in society. I found this chapter profound and it links with a number of other important writings from the likes of Arendt and Heidegger to provide an important critique of our approach to nature. It’s perhaps more relevant in our time than ever.
Eclipse of Reason, then, is unfalteringly bleak in its outlook. Horkheimer masterfully and passionately diagnoses the sickness in our society, and his outlook is grim. This is perhaps a shortcoming – not only Horkheimer but many of those writing in the lose tradition of the Frankfurt School or critical theory – what use is diagnosis without a cure? It’s not an easy question to answer. Horkheimer and his like, however, exist as an absolutely essential foil to orthodox culture and theory. These are the kind of thinkers we need in order to know where we stand, to focus our minds in the right direction. For this, Horkheimer’s work is priceless.
*This isn’t to say there’s been no good ethics for the last 100 years or more. I found Løgstrup’s attempt at justifying kindness in phenomenological terms valiant. The issue is that reason throws into doubt any claim to the absolute.
levitybooks's review against another edition
4.0
Video Review here
Horkheimer's saying that before the war, philosophical movements central to German-speaking countries changed reason from a 'way of knowing' to a 'motive for doing'. People didn't say 'I logically infer this is possible using reason', but rather, 'I have a reason to do this'.
This semantic shift placed the emphasis on having a feasible method, but not a beneficent purpose, for doing something. The justification is self-proclaimed desire, won over by rhetoric, but the argument's strength was based on pragmatism — could it be done and would it fix your problem? That allowed strong oration to be sufficient to convince the public to commit atrocities under order of bad rulers — given there was enough weapons, money and medals supplied, there was reason to make use of them to destroy such-and-such.
I've realized in myself that this is why I dislike people who refer to actions as 'reasonable' because it seems like a continuation of this ideology of subjective reason which spurs progress at the risk of corruption. The tradeoff is not worth it; there is no price on morality.
I walkthrough this in more general terms in my video review, but keep it simple, because critical theory isn't super accessible to me or anyone who doesn't read politics or sociology texts. The structure of the essay is highly abstract and theoretical, so it's hard to grasp general concepts. The GoodReads review by sologdin is a much more detailed and excellently thorough walkthrough of the main idea of this book, and shows its complex form, but above I wanted to give the take-home message for general readers.
Initial Reaction:
Personal Reflections
Everyone, I think there is something seriously wrong with the world. We do not understand anti-semitism; we do not clearly understand why Nazi Germany happened; we do not understand why Hitler came into power. How can we prevent future warfare without understanding this? Has the pandemic not reminded us that the state of the world can change overnight?
As a boy I disliked history. I think I still do. It seemed boring and cruel in comparison to psychology, geography, religious studies and english literature. You learn about body counts, dates and policies. It seemed to glorify death by scrutinizing the casualities and length of war. I never found we discussed ideologies, the motivations of rulers, the underlying beliefs of the populace. I wanted to know why it happened psychologically. These are people, not bodies. We never heard their story — history is told by those who win. We only learned our own role in the war and what we thought about it. What were the events that predisposed the everyman to be involved as the target and deployer of bombs? How could it have been prevented with words? What forgiveness was needed?
Interestingly, totalitarian rulers commonly use pathological terminology to dehumanize its victims. The sign of a bad ruler is that they call 'bad people' parasites, viruses, leeches, toxic, contagious. It reflects a similar weirdness I see in virology and biology in general. We know viruses exist, and we learn how to exterminate them. But we never learn WHY viruses came into existence. We teach the children 'random selection'. But in later biology, we learn that 'evolutionary niches motivate certain mutations over others' — that at the very least selective breeding promotes certain mutations over others. So what was the evolutionary niche that motivated a given specific deadly element to emerge out of nothingness? Somehow, we never question this. We are too busy fixing to try learn from our mistakes for the future. So in summary, there is a strangely unresolved notion of where the things that threaten mankind come from? What determines when threats to humanity rise, and their form? Be it a virus, or a ruler who wants to declare war, what elements create this so that we can recognize and dismantle them in the future?
I can't tell whether the pandemic motivated these thoughts, or the formal end of my long educational journey to define human suffering, or the dissolution of a long-term relationship, or the fact I am packing my suitcase in search of meaningful employment. All I know is, these thoughts feel like the direction of clarity, strength, and order.
I'm only 28, but I'm mediating on what it means to be a man. Yes to be independent, and yes to provide and support a family, if that is our desire. But I realize only now that, that is the beginning of manhood. These are man's inferior duties, within the nuclear family. But think — only young men read specifically about how to be strong, independent and supportive to women. It is the sign of an immature male reader (my past self included), to be wholly preoccupied with books that define individuality. It's far better than an illiterate personal development, but it's still self-absorbed. Because, now, just think of any older admirable male reader you know. What are they reading? Old men read only about God or war.
I used to think this was because old men were just boring. Like dusty history books, too. But now I think the advanced duties of men are to transcend grief through spirituality and to dismantle violence through history or politics. These are man's superior duties, to protect the intergenerational stability of the world. Thinking beyond the family. Men saving the world by actually thinking on that level — we're raised to be duped by the ideological discrepancy in contemporary superhero stories where the hero is solely focused on saving the damsel but by a ridiculous coincidence somehow end up saving the world, too. Surely we need to think beyond ourselves? I think it is a real man who can not only have a family, but can (and help others to) transcend death and dismantle evil that threatens mass society.
So I guess I'm experiencing a growth spurt in my opinion — I now pity men who grow up so fast with women who love them before they have had the time to mediate on these inferior and superior duties of man. It's not that these men can't recognize this in their maturity, but a man in love has his development somewhat arrested and when that occurs too young they rarely think beyond the comfort of a relationship. They succumb to the denial it brings about the global state of affairs and fail to strive for a 'meaningful' professional potential. I'm talking about the husbands you would wonder whether would survive or save others or themselves alone. A mindless dayjob, a family on autopilot, which is nice until a midlife crisis later which asks for greater maturity. I don't want to be that guy — nobody wants to be that guy! (And I'm betting some women, too, don't want to be like that guy, or married to one like him, either!)
------------
Having come down from this realization, I still think it holds. I see now a much deeper purpose for books, to ensure our legacies safely and beneficently extend beyond us. We live in an era where fake news exists, deep fake technology is rapidly emerging, and we rely on wikipedia for information. We might truly need books to keep society healthy, happy and together. I'm suggesting here that this unalterable physical form of information may not yet have reached its maximum need in this increasingly digital age, even though, yes, this book is even older than my Dad! We might one day need to remember that critical theory texts exist to guide us through the political mindgames of the future.
Horkheimer's saying that before the war, philosophical movements central to German-speaking countries changed reason from a 'way of knowing' to a 'motive for doing'. People didn't say 'I logically infer this is possible using reason', but rather, 'I have a reason to do this'.
This semantic shift placed the emphasis on having a feasible method, but not a beneficent purpose, for doing something. The justification is self-proclaimed desire, won over by rhetoric, but the argument's strength was based on pragmatism — could it be done and would it fix your problem? That allowed strong oration to be sufficient to convince the public to commit atrocities under order of bad rulers — given there was enough weapons, money and medals supplied, there was reason to make use of them to destroy such-and-such.
I've realized in myself that this is why I dislike people who refer to actions as 'reasonable' because it seems like a continuation of this ideology of subjective reason which spurs progress at the risk of corruption. The tradeoff is not worth it; there is no price on morality.
I walkthrough this in more general terms in my video review, but keep it simple, because critical theory isn't super accessible to me or anyone who doesn't read politics or sociology texts. The structure of the essay is highly abstract and theoretical, so it's hard to grasp general concepts. The GoodReads review by sologdin is a much more detailed and excellently thorough walkthrough of the main idea of this book, and shows its complex form, but above I wanted to give the take-home message for general readers.
Initial Reaction:
There's way too much to write about here. I think I might need to do this in stages to keep a record of all of my thoughts. This review is currently in a state of existential crisis, please excuse it.
So I'll begin with personal reflections then an outline of the higher concepts of this important book. I'm moving out and going through a lot of life changes and am very busy, so my thoughts are in flux. This review is currently very incomplete. Everything here is subject to change until this paragraph is deleted.
Personal Reflections
Everyone, I think there is something seriously wrong with the world. We do not understand anti-semitism; we do not clearly understand why Nazi Germany happened; we do not understand why Hitler came into power. How can we prevent future warfare without understanding this? Has the pandemic not reminded us that the state of the world can change overnight?
As a boy I disliked history. I think I still do. It seemed boring and cruel in comparison to psychology, geography, religious studies and english literature. You learn about body counts, dates and policies. It seemed to glorify death by scrutinizing the casualities and length of war. I never found we discussed ideologies, the motivations of rulers, the underlying beliefs of the populace. I wanted to know why it happened psychologically. These are people, not bodies. We never heard their story — history is told by those who win. We only learned our own role in the war and what we thought about it. What were the events that predisposed the everyman to be involved as the target and deployer of bombs? How could it have been prevented with words? What forgiveness was needed?
Interestingly, totalitarian rulers commonly use pathological terminology to dehumanize its victims. The sign of a bad ruler is that they call 'bad people' parasites, viruses, leeches, toxic, contagious. It reflects a similar weirdness I see in virology and biology in general. We know viruses exist, and we learn how to exterminate them. But we never learn WHY viruses came into existence. We teach the children 'random selection'. But in later biology, we learn that 'evolutionary niches motivate certain mutations over others' — that at the very least selective breeding promotes certain mutations over others. So what was the evolutionary niche that motivated a given specific deadly element to emerge out of nothingness? Somehow, we never question this. We are too busy fixing to try learn from our mistakes for the future. So in summary, there is a strangely unresolved notion of where the things that threaten mankind come from? What determines when threats to humanity rise, and their form? Be it a virus, or a ruler who wants to declare war, what elements create this so that we can recognize and dismantle them in the future?
I can't tell whether the pandemic motivated these thoughts, or the formal end of my long educational journey to define human suffering, or the dissolution of a long-term relationship, or the fact I am packing my suitcase in search of meaningful employment. All I know is, these thoughts feel like the direction of clarity, strength, and order.
I'm only 28, but I'm mediating on what it means to be a man. Yes to be independent, and yes to provide and support a family, if that is our desire. But I realize only now that, that is the beginning of manhood. These are man's inferior duties, within the nuclear family. But think — only young men read specifically about how to be strong, independent and supportive to women. It is the sign of an immature male reader (my past self included), to be wholly preoccupied with books that define individuality. It's far better than an illiterate personal development, but it's still self-absorbed. Because, now, just think of any older admirable male reader you know. What are they reading? Old men read only about God or war.
I used to think this was because old men were just boring. Like dusty history books, too. But now I think the advanced duties of men are to transcend grief through spirituality and to dismantle violence through history or politics. These are man's superior duties, to protect the intergenerational stability of the world. Thinking beyond the family. Men saving the world by actually thinking on that level — we're raised to be duped by the ideological discrepancy in contemporary superhero stories where the hero is solely focused on saving the damsel but by a ridiculous coincidence somehow end up saving the world, too. Surely we need to think beyond ourselves? I think it is a real man who can not only have a family, but can (and help others to) transcend death and dismantle evil that threatens mass society.
So I guess I'm experiencing a growth spurt in my opinion — I now pity men who grow up so fast with women who love them before they have had the time to mediate on these inferior and superior duties of man. It's not that these men can't recognize this in their maturity, but a man in love has his development somewhat arrested and when that occurs too young they rarely think beyond the comfort of a relationship. They succumb to the denial it brings about the global state of affairs and fail to strive for a 'meaningful' professional potential. I'm talking about the husbands you would wonder whether would survive or save others or themselves alone. A mindless dayjob, a family on autopilot, which is nice until a midlife crisis later which asks for greater maturity. I don't want to be that guy — nobody wants to be that guy! (And I'm betting some women, too, don't want to be like that guy, or married to one like him, either!)
------------
Having come down from this realization, I still think it holds. I see now a much deeper purpose for books, to ensure our legacies safely and beneficently extend beyond us. We live in an era where fake news exists, deep fake technology is rapidly emerging, and we rely on wikipedia for information. We might truly need books to keep society healthy, happy and together. I'm suggesting here that this unalterable physical form of information may not yet have reached its maximum need in this increasingly digital age, even though, yes, this book is even older than my Dad! We might one day need to remember that critical theory texts exist to guide us through the political mindgames of the future.