I'm game. I'll head to the library and check out The Gay Science later today. How far have you gotten Sam?

Someone should put up a blog post about next semester before the semester is over. I would be game for anything. Something challenging and relatively new would be nice, I'll leave the ideas up to those who know more.

What's the topic next semester?

This definitely helped, thank you. Technology has become a much more complicated issue for me in my mind, especially after Professor Long put his video up on Andrea's latest post, and after todays lecture. It seems to be thought of as an imposing force on humanity by some, and was previously by me. Seems more likely to me that, in so far as we are beings with rational capacities, and we have to deal with nature in some way at all points throughout history, it seems to be intermingled with our existence. As always there's something missing in my line of thought I'm sure. I will try to tackle your link after I write all these papers Damola, the title does look very helpful. Youtube on the other hand, I will tackle anytime. Thanks for the comments guys.

"Bourgeosie" Idealism I will take. I'm really confused about 'tendency to totalize systemic historical movements' after today's discussion in class, but it seems it is more complex than that for all of them.
As far as elitism goes, it seems as though part of their project to critique the status quo involved being separate from it somehow, and one way was to be REALLY HARD TO READ. In conclusion, it seems the Frankfurt school of thought is so complex and diverse that these claims seem reductionist in themselves (although I'm sure some of the people who wrote them had very complex ideas written themselves).

What's the topic for next semester, anyone know?

Blogging does create a sort of public sphere in which we can bounce ideas off each other, and have our opinion changed or shot down. While it seems slightly arduous compared to other classes (in which you, rather I, spend a few hours on your papers the night before they're due, and don't have to think about other peoples thoughts) to stay up to date with the blog, it is much more intellectually fulfilling to see the thoughts of everyone else in writing rather than having us all just hand our thoughts into a professor for only him to see.

Today's class definitely helped me understand this much much better. I think I may have to retract my statement about Marcuse's commitment to totality. First reason for doing so is that I typed in "Marcuse and Totality" and the first thing that came up was this essay! I originally was trying to reiterate that point that Martin Jay makes in his chapter on Marcuse in his book Marxism and Totality, but it seems Marcuse (as well as the rest of the critical theorists we have read) borrows certain elements from Marx and Hegel's ideas of a logical (in Hegel's case) or dialectical (Marx's case?) to make their arguments. The critical theorists being based in being critical always seem to make their arguments more complex than some systematic solution. In this essay, as well as his Eros and Civilization, Marcuse seems to use Hegel's determinate negation to bring us to the era we are in now, in which the technological apparatus brings increased efficiency and therefore abundance.From here he does necessarily see another negation, or a final utopian end, but a gradual increase in the amount of time man spends away from work, and therefore more time to freely cultivate ones individuality.

What I'm trying to say is I feel I may have mistook Marcuse's use of elements of previous thinkers systematic theories in his highly complex theory as a new system in itself, or in other words I simplified it too much, also the use of empirical evidence (seeing as the institute was one of theorizing and social research) was involved in some of these thinkers. That may be what you are referring to with ethnographic study of individuals interacting with/in their environments?

I would love to know where I'm wrong here as I just said a lot, and am probably once again misunderstanding. Help in understanding is always appreciated!

In this essay I meant by totality, the idea that there is a dialectic guiding history toward a certain liberation, which I guess would be tightly interwoven with his recognition of the 'dialectical relationship between human being and technology' that you commented on Andrea's post with. So I guess this would qualify as a holistic vision in which technological progress potentially leads to the realization of man's species being.

"No longer changed to competitive efficiency, the self could grow in the realm of satisfaction. Man could come into his own in his passions. The objects of his desires would be the less exchangeable the more they were seized and shaped by his free self. They would "belong" to him more than ever before, and such ownership would not be injurious, for it would not have to defend its own against a hostile society" (Marcuse, 64-65).

Totality is an extremely loaded word, and so is any notion of the whole, or a holistic vision, or view on things.

Here's something I could use some help or clarification with. Martin Jay wrote about Marcuse's "Anamnestic Totalization:" Marcuse's idea of "the liberating power of Remembrance". He talks about Marcuse's "first prolonged study of Hegel, directed by Heidegger, which appeared as Hegel's Ontologie in 1932" in which Marcuse argued:

This "not," this negativity which Being is, is itself never present in the sphere of immediacy, is itself not and is never present(italicized). This "not" is always precisely the other(italicized) of immediacy and the other of presence, that which is never as present(italicized) precisely never(italicized) is and what, however, constitutes its Being(italicized). This "not," this negativity, is the immediate present always already past at every moment. The Being of present being resides therefore always already in a past, but in a, to a certain degree, "intemporal" past (Logic, II, 3), in a past which still always is present and out(italicized) of which precisely Being is(italicized). A being is at each moment what it is in its immediate present through memory.... With the phenomenon of memory, Hegel opens the new dimension of Being which constitutes Being as authentic having-beenness (Gewesenheit): the dimension of essence. (Marcuse, Hegels Ontologie und die Grundlegung einer Theorie der Geschichlichkeit, p. 76.)

I would really appreciate if someone who knows more about Heidegger, Hegel, and Marcuse might be willing to take a stab. I'm supposed to write a paper analyzing Habermas, Marcuse, and Confucianism in comparison to each other, and I think their concepts of the relation of the individual to the whole may be a key point so any help would be really appreciated, thanks.

Great post, examining the crux of Marcuse's article, is the instrumental technological rationality, as a virtually non-reflective force, that is as a force with no specific ends in sight except to control/dominate nature (and as we know, therefore dominate man) going to lead to further domination or will its rationality inevitably lead further liberation of man, insofar as it relieves us of toil. Your Freeman quote was a spot on response to this problem. It does seem that thus far the progress of technology has been pushed by the economic influences at hand. Every day a new medicine is being developed, but also a new weapon. The U.S. "defense spending" for 2010 is 685.1 BILLION dollars. That's 685,000,000,000 dollars. Until we find a way to label our toys good or bad, and find an appropriate ends for the technology we make other than control (domination) I will have extreme hesitation to agree with Marcuse, especially on the basis that the technology rationality will lead to this on its own. The critical thought which has been rendered impotent must be used on the technological rationality that has spread into all facets of life.

Dr. Stephen Brookfield wrote an article that may give some insight into Habermas' collapse of the public sphere, and some future theorizing that resulted from his analysis of the public sphere. It seems to be more hopeful in that it is more fully developed, and Brookfield explicates, in a relatively clear manner, the concepts of "public sphere" and "lifeworld" which help make more sense of the Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. It also illuminates why Habermas' may have seemed ambiguous when talking about the public sphere, because the concept itself is quite fluid and ambiguous.
http://www.tcrecord.org/library/content.asp?conte...