> Someone (forget whom) has said
>that Heidegger's _Being and Time_ is in part and whole a response to
>Lukacs' development of this term, so you might want to look at B&T's intro
>for the reference and see how it plays out.
(Robt McDonell)
such a statement is better off without an author;
it is ludicrous! B&T will gain insight into foucault
but not reification.
however, having said that, yer probably rei-fering to
Adorno's _negative dialectics_ , a jeremiad agst
b&t that contains accusations of the reification
of "being" by ol' Heidy. (see also Adorno's
--the jargon of authenticity-- which may be a reified
interp of heideggerian Gerade).
regardless of lukacs, marx, heidegger or adorno,
i'd appreciate a lucid discussion of reification
here in "the very latest stages of capitalism"
--heh, heh, heh--
i think the term self-reified about 20 years ago.
kindest regards,
hen
>that Heidegger's _Being and Time_ is in part and whole a response to
>Lukacs' development of this term, so you might want to look at B&T's intro
>for the reference and see how it plays out.
(Robt McDonell)
such a statement is better off without an author;
it is ludicrous! B&T will gain insight into foucault
but not reification.
however, having said that, yer probably rei-fering to
Adorno's _negative dialectics_ , a jeremiad agst
b&t that contains accusations of the reification
of "being" by ol' Heidy. (see also Adorno's
--the jargon of authenticity-- which may be a reified
interp of heideggerian Gerade).
regardless of lukacs, marx, heidegger or adorno,
i'd appreciate a lucid discussion of reification
here in "the very latest stages of capitalism"
--heh, heh, heh--
i think the term self-reified about 20 years ago.
kindest regards,
hen