Hello Vunch and Ana:
At first the easy thing: Rosa Luxemburg is the correct spelling. At the
same time K. Liebknecht was murdered, but this was not the end of german
marxism betweenn WW1 and WW2. The socialist party SPD splitted up in
social-democrat wing and a comunist wing (USPD).
I would agree to say that the members of Frankfurt School were not
orthodox marxists - otherwise they wouldn't have emigrated to the USA
(my opinion). And there is a quotation of Brecht on the language of
Frankfurt School, which I don't get in the original. He says that their
language is a kind of interpratation of the marxist original - does
anyone know the quotation?
Ana wrote to this topic:
>
> > The Frankfurt School was not politically neutral,
> > if you consider politic not in a narrow sense.
>
I would agree to this, even if the members of FS did not engage in
party-politics or did not support the students in 68. I think they wrote
their analysis in the purpose of changing thinks by their criticism, so
in a wider sense it seems pretty political to me.
Vunch wrote:
> Habermas as the latest rep of the FS can really only be considered in > terms of his philosophy
Only one comment on Habermas: his conception of philosophy is pretty far
away from the "Dialectics of Enlightenment - my opinion, but read the
"Philosophycal Discourse of modernity" specially the chapter on
Adorno/Horkheimer. So I think it is easier to divide an old/older
Frankfurt School and that things occuring around Habermas and Apel.
Maybe this is the way back to Foucault: Even if there are big
differences between the conceptions of critic used by Adorno/Horkheimer
and by Foucault - especially the understanding of the "truth" of their
own position (e.g. "there could not be a right life in the wrong one"
Adorno - don't know if the translation is o.k., but hope you know the
quotation). But I think there are some similarities. A couple of words
on my reading of Foucault: My focus on his work is the latest Foucault
of 83/84; and my key is the article on "What is enlightenment". So from
that point it is possible to read Foucault as a critic of the presence.
And this critical impetus brings him near to old/older Frankfurt School.
The difference to Habermas and Co. is that Foucault and Adorno don't
want to say which is the right and only future - kind of nasty - better:
what is the right way into future.
In that way I am interested in studies on the "critical-concepts" of
Foucault and Adornos Negative Dialectic. Sounds maybe a little bit
crazy, because Foucault is not that what we can call a dialectic
thinker, but somewhere I read that he said in the 80, that there were
some dialectic elements in his last work - does anyone konw the context?
Markus
At first the easy thing: Rosa Luxemburg is the correct spelling. At the
same time K. Liebknecht was murdered, but this was not the end of german
marxism betweenn WW1 and WW2. The socialist party SPD splitted up in
social-democrat wing and a comunist wing (USPD).
I would agree to say that the members of Frankfurt School were not
orthodox marxists - otherwise they wouldn't have emigrated to the USA
(my opinion). And there is a quotation of Brecht on the language of
Frankfurt School, which I don't get in the original. He says that their
language is a kind of interpratation of the marxist original - does
anyone know the quotation?
Ana wrote to this topic:
>
> > The Frankfurt School was not politically neutral,
> > if you consider politic not in a narrow sense.
>
I would agree to this, even if the members of FS did not engage in
party-politics or did not support the students in 68. I think they wrote
their analysis in the purpose of changing thinks by their criticism, so
in a wider sense it seems pretty political to me.
Vunch wrote:
> Habermas as the latest rep of the FS can really only be considered in > terms of his philosophy
Only one comment on Habermas: his conception of philosophy is pretty far
away from the "Dialectics of Enlightenment - my opinion, but read the
"Philosophycal Discourse of modernity" specially the chapter on
Adorno/Horkheimer. So I think it is easier to divide an old/older
Frankfurt School and that things occuring around Habermas and Apel.
Maybe this is the way back to Foucault: Even if there are big
differences between the conceptions of critic used by Adorno/Horkheimer
and by Foucault - especially the understanding of the "truth" of their
own position (e.g. "there could not be a right life in the wrong one"
Adorno - don't know if the translation is o.k., but hope you know the
quotation). But I think there are some similarities. A couple of words
on my reading of Foucault: My focus on his work is the latest Foucault
of 83/84; and my key is the article on "What is enlightenment". So from
that point it is possible to read Foucault as a critic of the presence.
And this critical impetus brings him near to old/older Frankfurt School.
The difference to Habermas and Co. is that Foucault and Adorno don't
want to say which is the right and only future - kind of nasty - better:
what is the right way into future.
In that way I am interested in studies on the "critical-concepts" of
Foucault and Adornos Negative Dialectic. Sounds maybe a little bit
crazy, because Foucault is not that what we can call a dialectic
thinker, but somewhere I read that he said in the 80, that there were
some dialectic elements in his last work - does anyone konw the context?
Markus