Authors and Philosophers who set their respective fields back by more than a couple decades.

File: 12 KB, 263x350, Adorno5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 01:39:59 2015 No.6712958 [Reply] [Original]

Authors and Philosophers who set their respective fields back by more than a couple decades.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 01:42:27 2015 No.6712964 >>6712958 Are you fucking serious now? The culture industry alone is pretty impressive, Adorno is based.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 01:43:13 2015 No.6712965 kek nice one Evola would have set back philosophy by more than a couple decades if anyone ever considered his dumb ass relevant or worth reading.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 01:46:13 2015 No.6712972 What did he set back? The discourses he's involved in are irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 01:46:16 2015 No.6712974 Shakespeare

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 01:46:50 2015 No.6712976 >>6712964 Adorno is a grumpy neckbeard overlord who hates everything that isn't pretentious as fuck. Never trust a man who doesn't understand jazz

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 01:47:51 2015 No.6712981 >>6712976 Jazz is pretentious. It also isn't something you 'understand.'

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 01:48:16 2015 No.6712984 >>6712958 I wonder if I'm the only person who likes both Evola and Adorno with some reservations.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 01:49:04 2015 No.6712986 >>6712984 I feel Le same way. The culture industry exists because we live in the Kali Yuga.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 01:49:13 2015 No.6712987 >>6712976 >jazz >something to understand >not garbage top kek

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 01:49:59 2015 No.6712989 >>6712976 >he doesn't like jazz >grumpy Considering that he wrote minima moralia in outcast he seems to be in good humor with his writing

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 01:56:42 2015 No.6713004 >>6712981 Now yes, but it wasn't when he wrote about it. To him it was the epitome of low culture

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:01:10 2015 No.6713012 >>6713004 Then how can you blame him for writing it off?

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:02:52 2015 No.6713017
File: 427 KB, 1920x1080, evans-bill-4f8f710c3f195.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6712981
>>6712987
Jazz is improvisation. Jazz, like literature, is a huge field with many branches and traditions. The unifying elements of these traditions are a melody and harmony followed by an improvisation over the melody and harmony.

>"garbage"
>"pretentious"
>"It also isn't something you understand"
These are the exact responses most people give when they try to read challenging books. Imagine someone reading 30 pages of Infinite Jest and saying "this is stupid shit. everyone who likes it is a pretentious faggot".

Jazz is a huge field. Like literature, there are stories which are told in a standard format, there are stories that require work from the reader, and there are more experimental works.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:03:40 2015 No.6713019 >>6712976 But he was absolutely right about Jazz.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:04:12 2015 No.6713020 >>6713017 Saying that jazz isn't understandable isn't the same as calling it shit, you idiot

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:08:07 2015 No.6713024 >>6712976 >>6713017 Only the musically illiterate believe there is any merit or value to jazz. Go study real art music, abandon your masturbatory nonsense.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:13:35 2015 No.6713042

>>6713020
Ok. Then imagine that someone said Infinite Jest wasn't understandable. You sound much worse than that actually. Whilst this person is just commenting on a book, you're commenting on a whole style of music. Why are you so angry? I'd like a response that doesn't involve telling me to go back to reddit if I want a hugbox.
Jazz is understandable. Why do you think it isn't?

>>6713024
Quite the opposite actually. One of the major reasons Jazz has moved from limelight is that a lot of it current Jazz is music made for musicians or long time listeners. May ask what you consider to be jazz? Or what jazz musicians you think are shit?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:15:17 2015 No.6713044 >>6713042 You don't understand rhythm, you feel it. You're an idiot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:16:22 2015 No.6713047 >>6713017 Jazz isn't like "Literature". Music, is like Literature. Jazz is like Genre-Fiction.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:16:32 2015 No.6713048 >>6713024 Adorno didnt understand. Anon doesn't understand. Here's a hint: you're trying too hard.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:17:43 2015 No.6713049 >>6713047 Actually laughed out loud.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:19:47 2015 No.6713056

>>6713042
>Quite the opposite actually.
No, not at all.
>One of the major reasons Jazz has moved from limelight is that a lot of it current Jazz is music made for musicians or long time listeners.
Nope, jazz only appeals to self-gratifying excuses for musicians. There isn't a musician in the world that values that garbage.
>Or what jazz musicians you think are shit?
All of them, jazz is possibly the worst thing to ever happen to Western culture.
>>6713048
No argument.

I have over two decades of experience, you aren't even two decades old yet.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:21:19 2015 No.6713060

>>6713044
>>6713044
oh my god lol. what a complete fool you've made of yourself. do you even know what a time signature means you absolute nonce? "you don't understand it" he says. ahaha. wow. really unbelievably bad post there, guy. leave this thread before you start doing damage control.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:21:25 2015 No.6713061 File: 22 KB, 320x240, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6713042 This

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:22:29 2015 No.6713066 >>6713056 you really aren't fooling anyone.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:24:22 2015 No.6713072 File: 257 KB, 415x476, 1431593703357.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6713060 >he thinks jazz is about time signatures!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:25:09 2015 No.6713075 >>6713012 Because he was wrong

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:25:26 2015 No.6713077 >>6712965 As someone interested in reading Evola, why is that? Is it because of his mysticism (or whatever one wants to call it)

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:27:38 2015 No.6713087

>>6713044
That's just untrue. Rhythm is quantifiable; from a maths and music theory perspective. Good musicians may not count, but they're always aware of rhythm. Where do they want to come in, where do they leave, how long do they hold notes. Through practice this awareness can become unconscious process, but it's certainly not something musicians just start to "feel".

Also. Rhythm is an important element of all types of music. Are you saying music in general is not understandable? You haven't answered my question. Why is Jazz not understandable?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:28:25 2015 No.6713091 >>6713087 I'm saying that you either feel it or you don't.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:32:34 2015 No.6713099

>>6713047
I was comparing branches of literature to different styles of jazz. My point is that there is that Jazz is too large a genre for someone to just say "it's all shit" or "it's all not understandable". I really don't care about making an argument for jazz being like literature.

>>6713056
>Nope, jazz only appeals to self-gratifying excuses for musicians.
>There isn't a musician in the world that values that garbage.
>All of them, jazz is possibly the worst thing to ever happen to Western culture.
Wow. I'm honestly not sure if you're trolling or not. You certainly don't have to like jazz. But to say that no musicians like it or respect the artform? I'm going to assume you've had little interactions with musicians?? I'll ask again. What jazz musicians have you listened to?
>I have over two decades of experience, you aren't even two decades old yet.
You have two decades of experience, yet you still can't make an argument without calling upon your age?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:33:34 2015 No.6713103 >>6713091 Do you even play any instruments?

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:37:14 2015 No.6713115

>>6712958
Thread about "philosophers who set their fields back by more than a couple of decades" which has a photo of Adorno - author of several massive, demanding and decisive works in the fields of philosophy, social theory, literary criticism and general musicology - at the top, and which consists entirely of discussion about the one thirty-page "Jazz" essay that PC liberals always get their panties in a twist about because, even though they don't understand its argument, they take objection to the use of terms like "primitive" and "rhythmic" because they're "raaaaaaacist".
Another strong argument against the wisdom of having established a "literarture and philosophy" board on 4Chan.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:40:52 2015 No.6713122 >>6713115 You know what you're getting when you come here. If you don't like it (or don't understand jazz music) then just leave. It's really that easy.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:41:54 2015 No.6713124 >>6713115 >implying anyone who brings up critical theory here has read anything.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:42:08 2015 No.6713125 >>6713072 I think your reading comprehension is a bit weak

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:44:05 2015 No.6713131

>>6713115
>which consists entirely of discussion about the one thirty-page "Jazz" essay that PC liberals always get their panties in a twist about because, even though they don't understand its argument, they take objection to the use of terms like "primitive" and "rhythmic" because they're "raaaaaaacist".

Have you read this thread? No one has mentioned racism, sexism, or any other PC terms. There's been a debate on jazz. You're almost as insular and parochial as the SJWs you loathe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:45:18 2015 No.6713135 >>6713115 but that's not what happened. sorry chief there's no liberal agenda to people liking jazz

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:45:51 2015 No.6713139 >>6713125 I think yours is worse

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:46:11 2015 No.6713141

>>6713115
The issue with Adorno is that his theorizing is more akin sorcery, he set Sociology back pushing critical knowledge over empirical knowledge. He was as out of touch with the reality of social relations as he was with Jazz music. I have read minima moralia and there is little of worth in it, it is mostly Adorno jotting down his superficial take on modernity.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 02:52:51 2015 No.6713163

>>6713066
>>6713099
>le trole
Go back to /mu/
>But to say that no musicians like it or respect the artform?
It's not an artform in any sense.
>I'm going to assume you've had little interactions with musicians??
Those aren't musicians, they're children circlejerking over the epitome of anti-music.
>I'm going to assume you've had little interactions with musicians??
Everything I've seen praised.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 03:17:03 2015 No.6713229

>>6713077
After reading a bunch of other philosophers and political theorists, Ride the Tiger struck me as horribly disjointed and irrational. It's really just "muh special snowflake feels" at its heart.

His mysticism proves he's a tard. Thinking we're in the end times doesn't mean shit since pretty much every theistic relgion makes that claim. Telling people the world's falling apart now but will get back on track soon enough if you have faith is easily the best way to hook someone into your ideology.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 03:45:08 2015 No.6713296 File: 3.43 MB, 3365x4001, Allan_Ramsay_-_David_Hume,_1711_-_1776._Historian_and_philosopher_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6712958 pic related

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 03:55:15 2015 No.6713314 >>6713296 Lmao this is what christfags want to believe

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 03:59:31 2015 No.6713325 File: 105 KB, 1045x535, hacks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] these fucking hacks set philosophy back 300 years, maybe more

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 04:02:42 2015 No.6713333 >>6713325 I would be willing to give Marx some leeway...

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 04:11:41 2015 No.6713352 >>6713325 If one doesn’t obfuscate philosophy, it's too difficult to defend against refutation. If it's nebulous then you can move the goalposts around whenever someone questions what the philosopher really meant.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 04:14:59 2015 No.6713365 File: 2.48 MB, 2560x1920, 1433841984047.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] this thread shows again that american /lit/ is pure fail. i'm off to bed until the europeans show up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 04:16:56 2015 No.6713371 File: 2.40 MB, 5500x4250, l.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6713365 yurope pls

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 04:20:20 2015 No.6713379 >>6713325 No they didn't. No one ever listened to Heidegger or Sartre, and Marx and Hegel were, by the 20th century, abandoned by serious philosophers in favour of Gottlob Frege.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 04:28:20 2015 No.6713387 >>6713379 Shiggy diggy

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 04:28:50 2015 No.6713392 >>6713387 Are you a Real?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 04:29:54 2015 No.6713393 Plato's and Aristotle's bullshit semantics held back Western civilization for more than a millenium, I'd say that's the record

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 04:34:40 2015 No.6713407 >>6713393 That was Christianity...

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 04:44:59 2015 No.6713430 File: 436 KB, 498x516, 1408231586145.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6713141 >this is what positivists believe >>6713379 >serious philosophers

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 04:46:32 2015 No.6713432 >>6713430 >positivism No, that died in the 30s, but real philosophy lived on.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 05:07:19 2015 No.6713465 >>6713163 What music do you listen to?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 05:11:36 2015 No.6713474 >>6713325 What does obfuscation even mean in this context? Sure, Hegel and Heidegger can be very misleading with their invented words, but i found Sartre much easier to understand. I havent really read any Marx, but doesnt he atleast explain his terms?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 05:17:26 2015 No.6713487 Quality thread. All that is worth pointing out here is that OP's Adorno pic is probably the best picture of the man in existence, but exclusively for the reason that it accentuates the majesty of Adorno's eyebrows.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 06:16:33 2015 No.6713624

>>6713430
except that picture better represent the Critical school of sociology where individual sociologist argue via rhetoric why their world is correct. Empirical sociology use data to form a world view, thus it is the complete opposite of that picture.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 06:26:28 2015 No.6713643 File: 61 KB, 948x474, Laurie Penny.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 06:36:35 2015 No.6713670 >>6713325 Have you read Marx? He's only obfuscating if you're illiterate, retarded, or both.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 06:42:08 2015 No.6713677 >>6713670 t. lenin

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 06:43:20 2015 No.6713680 >>6713677 What does t. mean? Serious question

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 06:46:11 2015 No.6713684

>>6713474
>atleast explain his terms
lol no. Marx uses philosophical terminology rather loosely. This makes semantic sophists from both the analytical and continental schools really fucking butthurt even though Marx isn't that hard to read. Comes with the fact that they were trying to appeal to everyday schmucks.

Marx died before he could write his promised piece on his dialectical method, and as a result, Marxian dialectics comes from interpretations of Marx, especially from Engels. Modern scholarship tends to distance itself from Engels because of Engels' infatuation with the 'dialectics of nature' which was eventually codified as dogma in the USSR as 'dialectical materialism', but Engels easier to read compared to Marx, and especially much much more easier to read compared to other Hegelians.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 06:48:42 2015 No.6713687 >>6713643 she's kind of cute

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 06:59:39 2015 No.6713709

>>6713680
I think it comes from I think a finnish imageboard or maybe krautchan, whatever. I don't remember. When someone puts 't.' behind a name, it's supposed to signify that the statement comes from that or something like that person, usually in a sarcastic or jokey way. No idea what that anon meant by 't. lenin'. Lenin isn't obfuscating at all as long as you know the context of his writings of which most were polemical. (which most people don't, tbh).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 07:05:47 2015 No.6713723 >>6713624 >sociological positivism >1969+46 U wot?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 07:09:35 2015 No.6713731 >ctrl+f chomsky >no results

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 07:10:13 2015 No.6713733 >>6713731 kek he's right tho

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 07:13:35 2015 No.6713748
File: 111 KB, 1280x811, F2.large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6713723
>truth via dialectics
>400bc+2415
U wot?

Your type are only going to become more irrelevant, best get ready to snuggle up to the lit department with the rest of the trash

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 07:25:28 2015 No.6713775

>>6713748
>Your type are only going to become more irrelevant,
Ad populum? From a positivist? Nothing to see here.
>best get ready to snuggle up to the lit department with the rest of the trash
Since you have established ad populum as a legitimate argument: where do you think you are? If you think lit is trash, leave.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 07:35:25 2015 No.6713787
File: 31 KB, 640x480, geo.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6713775
>Ad populum
yes popularity because the epistemology actually enables the discovery of dynamics that are rooted in reality. Rather than the sorcery of anti-empiricists. Do not think literature is trash, I think the literary theories are trash though.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 07:43:48 2015 No.6713805

>>6713787
>yes popularity because the epistemology actually enables the discovery of dynamics that are rooted in reality
Of course it does, and that was never contested by crotical theory. You obviously have no idea what the whole controversy is even about. For example
>anti-empiricists
The critique of positicism doesn't reject empirical approaches, it rejects a certain belief about what those approaches can and cannot do in the humanities.
>I think the literary theories are trash though
Do you have better theories? And are those based in empirical research?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 07:45:13 2015 No.6713807 >>6713103 Flute, guitar, and saxophone.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 07:46:05 2015 No.6713808 >>6713024 You are so wrong it is hilarious. It takes musical literacy to understand jazz.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 07:58:57 2015 No.6713835 Okay has any of you retards even bothered to actually read the essay you're getting all riled up about? If not, you need to shut up until you have read it. https://wiki.brown.edu/confluence/download/attachments/75699729/Adorno-On+Jazz.pdf

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 08:04:22 2015 No.6713839 File: 346 KB, 1440x900, 1428202120942.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6713748 >>truth via dialectics

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 08:06:49 2015 No.6713845

>>6713805
yes and the degree to which the critical theorists denied the applicability of empirical approaches was far too great. Most departments in decent universities are dumping positions for critical theorists or allowing these position to die out one retirement at a time.

Particular literary theories maybe useful in understand an influence on a writer, but this means that they have a very limited context. What I was getting at is that dead and outdated theories on aesthetics, sociology, politics, and psychology become the basis for literary theories.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 08:08:08 2015 No.6713846 >>6713839 I think Marx's original work is one the most important works of all time, just that Marxism has become a religion.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 08:15:47 2015 No.6713858

>>6713845
>applicability
What sort of applicability are you talking about? What capacity of an empirical approach do you believe critical theory falsely denied?
>What I was getting at is that dead and outdated theories on aesthetics, sociology, politics, and psychology become the basis for literary theories.
Whereas instead they should analyze literature using what, evopsych?

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 08:30:38 2015 No.6713879

>>6713858
More straight forward and less paranoid understandings of mass culture, sports, consumerism, politics, and labor. Understandings based upon individual rationality, personal utility, and social cohesion instead the one posited by critical theorist which were primary based upon the idea of hegemony and false consciousness.

I am saying they should be used in a limited context. To understand the thoughts and biases of the author it is extremely useful to make use of these theories. I do not think they are useful in understanding how literature affects people or for shining a light on human nature. Literature should be analyze through life experience until (if) we have a decent theory cognition.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 08:37:10 2015 No.6713887

>>6713879
>More straight forward and less paranoid understandings of mass culture, sports, consumerism, politics, and labor. Understandings based upon individual rationality, personal utility, and social cohesion instead the one posited by critical theorist which were primary based upon the idea of hegemony and false consciousness

So what you are criticizing about critical theory is literally that it comes to conclusions you disagree with ideologically? And the advantate you see in positivistic approaches is that they don't come to those conclusions? Ok this is just sad, to think that you believe this makes for sound epistemological reasoning, I don't even know what to say.

>Literature should be analyze through life experience until (if) we have a decent theory cognition.
Both variants sound like horrible ways of treating literature tbh.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 08:47:58 2015 No.6713905

>>6713887
I saying I disagree with it because it fails to line up with reality. I am sure that the ideas of hegemony and other critical ideas have applicability in a weak sense, but to create a world view from them is ridiculous. The advantage in the positivist approach is that it can actually deduce dynamics which can then be used to predict future behavior. It is a better model of reality than critical approaches. Though it is cute how you are trying to imply a false consciousness, without actually pointing where critical theories provide true consciousness.

>Both variants sound like horrible ways of treating literature tbh.
yes because literature is about theories and not conveying human experience.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 08:50:45 2015 No.6713909

>>6713887
>ideologically?
Their ideological bent is what makes them useless in actual sociological work. You probably study literature so you probably don't realize that the social sciences do in fact aspire to be scientific, and for the most part they do a decent job of using data to arrive at conclusions. Adorno etc. didn't.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 08:53:13 2015 No.6713915

>>6713879
I'm sure that your other interlocutor in this thread will be able to "field" this as well as I can but here's my two cents' worth:

It's true that Adorno's and Horkheimer's work mostly predates the whole dissolution, in the past fifty years or so, of that early-20th-Century division between worthless, industrially-produced "mass culture" - satirized by Orwell, for example, in his image of "novel-writing machines" in "1984" - and that difficult and delicate "highbrow culture" in which Adorno saw pretty much the only hope even for "the masses".

Adorno would be very puzzled if he were resurrected today and found himself confronted with four-page essays in the cultural supplement of the "Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" on "The Dark Knight Rises" and "Avengers 2".

I have no doubt, though, that, if Adorno had been writing in the period 1990-2020 rather than the period 1940-1970, he would have approached the dialectics of post-modern culture with the same subtlety as he approached the dialectics of modern culture. Your remark about Critical Theory being "primarily based on the idea of hegemony and false consciousness" is an illustration of the dangers of this confused entity "Cultural Marxism" that one sees floating around on these boards. Adorno never, as far as I am aware, employs the former concept - "hegemony" - and his use of the latter - "false consciousness" - is several shades subtler and more dialectical than its use in the work of cruder Marxists like Lukacs, for example.

Adorno, for example, actually APPROVES, in many of his texts of the social-scientific "positivism" that less subtle Marxists dismissed or attacked as "false consciousness" and points out that "the false consciousness of a world that has been objectively rendered 'false' is a truer consciousness than 'true consciousness'."

You won't find reasoning of THAT subtlety and dialectical flexibility in Gramsci or Lukacs or Marcuse or other writers who are commonly lumped together with Adorno as "Cultural Marxists", which is why the term is pretty useless in the end.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 08:58:08 2015 No.6713922

>>6713915
>I have no doubt, though, that, if Adorno had been writing in the period 1990-2020 rather than the period 1940-1970, he would have approached the dialectics of post-modern culture with the same subtlety as he approached the dialectics of modern culture
Someone says something like this in every thread Adorno comes up in. I don't see how it redeems his actually existing work.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 09:01:14 2015 No.6713928

>>6713905
>I saying I disagree with it because it fails to line up with reality. I am sure that the ideas of hegemony and other critical ideas have applicability in a weak sense, but to create a world view from them is ridiculous.
What exactly is ridiculous about it? You are not giving reasons, you are just echoing a view that is, ironically, demonstrably hegemonical.
>The advantage in the positivist approach is that it can actually deduce dynamics which can then be used to predict future behavior. It is a better model of reality than critical approaches.
Thing is, critical theory doesn't even deny that a purely empirical approach can provide accurate predictions. Instead, it asks for the way an approach that deems itself neutral on social issues will automatically lend itself to be instrumentalized for purposes of societal control. The massive blind spot of positivistic social sciences is that they cannot cknceptualize their own function within society, they assume a detachment of the scientist from the social reality which he participates in.
>without actually pointing where critical theories provide true consciousness.
They provide it negatively, by pointing out false consciousness.
>yes because literature is about theories and not conveying human experience
False dichotomy if I've ever seen one.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 09:02:53 2015 No.6713929 >>6713928 Being hegemonical doesn't make something incorrect. You're the problem with the Left.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 09:03:58 2015 No.6713933 >>6713909 That's the thing, positivistic social science has an ideological bent of its own, that it must necessarily obfuscate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 09:08:03 2015 No.6713942 >>6713933 What makes critical theory better? It doesn't arrive at data-driven conclusions, so it has no place in a rigorous science. Everything is ideological, this criticism really isn't as powerful as you seem to think it is.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 09:08:27 2015 No.6713943

>>6713915
>Adorno never, as far as I am aware, employs the former concept - "hegemony" - and his use of the latter - "false consciousness" - is several shades subtler and more dialectical than its use in the work of cruder Marxists like Lukacs, for example.
The guy you're talking to evidently has no grasp of such subtleties, hegemony is just as good a term to him as would be, idk totality, what have you.
>Gramsci or Lukacs or Marcuse
Herbie did nothing wrong, at least nothing that warrants throwing him under the bus like that.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 09:08:46 2015 No.6713945

>>6713922
And I, on my side, don't see what you think should be expected from that work.
Do you condemn the literary criticism of Samuel Johnson because the tools he developed are not adequate to appreciating "Finnegans Wake" and "Infinite Jest"?
Adorno was an analyst of mid-20th-Century global culture, and a brilliant one. I don't think that, if he had lived to be 100, he would have been so stubborn as to deny that globalization, massive rises in standards of literacy etc. have created phenomena he never dealt with, or could possibly have dealt with.
He would probably incline, if he were still alive, to the view that the "problem of modernity" is less obsolete and overtaken by events than many post-modernist types would have us believe. But I'm sure that he would face the new facts and try to deal with them - something he obviously COULDN'T do in a text written in 1948.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 09:10:50 2015 No.6713948 >>6713929 Do I have to tell you the marxian definition of ideology? Fill in the blank: necessary [ ] consciousness.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 09:13:13 2015 No.6713954 >>6713942 The problem lies with the object of research, society. The obfuscation lf your own societal function and the necessary bkas that comes with it leads to results that are false even if the data is correct.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 09:16:24 2015 No.6713963 >>6713948 I don't care. Your attitude is alienating countless people who would be active with your cause if you weren't so obnoxious. Hegemonic powers can be factually correct about states of affairs. You're an idiot if you think otherwise.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 09:18:02 2015 No.6713970

>>6713954
That seems even more true of the Frankfurt school. The concept of the authoritarian personality has little to no scientific evidence supporting its existence as a real psychological structure. It's very much a product of psostwar Holocaust terrors.

I'm willing to bet you haven't studied much sociology.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 09:19:17 2015 No.6713974

>>6713943
Marcuse did his best, I suppose, "according to his lights". But it has to be said that he is that one among the first-generation Frankfurt School theorists whose work and person DO lend most credence to this dubious entity "Cultural Marxism" conceived of as an amoeba-like body of thought extending its pseudopods throughout post-1960s US culture and society. Marcuse DID take on Angela Davis as a grad student. Adorno would surely have ended up calling the cops on the simple-minded strident bitch.

It's been a source of much mischief, then, that "Frankfurt School theory", for most Americans, is summed up in "One-Dimensional Man" and "Eros and Civilization". Adorno's and Horkheimer's ideas ARE there in those books, of course, in some form. But it took Marcuse a HELL of a long time to grasp their subtlety and radicality and I doubt if he EVER did, fully.

Read Rolf Wiggershaus's account of Marcuse's reaction in 1949 when Adorno and Horkheimer sent him an early copy of "The Dialectic of Enlightenment". It amounted basically to "Um...thanks"...followed by twenty years of silence.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 09:21:52 2015 No.6713981

>>6713407
This tbh. Tearing down the barrier between mythos and logos prevented serious intellectual and philosophical advancement for at least a millennium.

The polytheists may have made rituals and sacrifices to the divine in the hopes of appeasing them and safeguarding the community at large, but only with the rise of Abrahamic religions did one half to believe every set dogma and religious belief over their own logic. Where once public rituals where enough to prove religiosity, accepting the virgin birth as a literal event and continued church tithes were never enough.

>muh Dante
>muh Petrarch

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 09:21:53 2015 No.6713982

>>6713945
>Do you condemn the literary criticism of Samuel Johnson because the tools he developed are not adequate to appreciating "Finnegans Wake" and "Infinite Jest"?
No, because they didn't claim to be sociologists. Using literary criticism to arrive at conclusions about culture while disregarding the value of data-drivem inquiry is ludicrous and intellectually dishonest.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 09:29:30 2015 No.6713996

>>6713928
What is ridiculous is that people can believe that there is an overarching conspiracy of various groups dumbing down the masses, restricting freedoms with reckless abandon, and failing to educate people on what matter. These grand theories ignore the practical and economic limitations of our institutions, the internal conflicts within institutions, the incredible complexity and difficulty of economics. It is ridiculous to start with a model of utopia to critique current conditions without taking into account very real and limiting constraints.

> Instead, it asks for the way an approach that deems itself neutral on social issues will automatically lend itself to be instrumentalized for purposes of societal control.
The same could be said of critical methods, these types of issues are never one sided. This knowledge can just as easily be instrumentalize for societal good and freedom.

>they assume a detachment of the scientist from the social reality which he participates in.
not the case at all. Positivists however do not think the scientist is trapped by his socially reality.

>They provide it negatively, by pointing out false consciousness.
Just pointing out an opposite or a heterodox idea does not move one towards a more accurate model of reality or true consciousness.

>False dichotomy if I've ever seen one.
great literature lives on from simplistic and facile theories, this why the element of human experience the most important

>>6713915
He makes use of the idea of hegemony through out his notes on Jazz. He claims the success of Jazz music would fail if only the market apparatus was exposed. I am still reading through it but his idea are only subtle because obfuscation not because of restraint.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 09:43:23 2015 No.6714013 >>6713379 >Marx and Hegel were, by the 20th century, abandoned by serious philosophers >Americans seriously believe this

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 09:57:09 2015 No.6714047 >>6714013 >serious philosophers outside of the anglo-sphere >yuropoors believe this

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 10:04:35 2015 No.6714059 >>6712976 LOL. You will never enjoy the maximum keks of Adorno's dream journal. Tis a pity.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 10:07:02 2015 No.6714065 >>6713017 bullshit detected. Melody and harmony are pretty secondary to Jazz. Not unimportant but hardly central.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 10:28:29 2015 No.6714105 the best jazz is swingless jazz with advanced harmonies and sick outside licks played by white people

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 10:35:11 2015 No.6714116 >>6714105 Define Advanced.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 10:36:13 2015 No.6714121 example of good jazz https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TU7h6HbDHc4 indian guy with a physics degree and no swing playing dissonant chords on his piano

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 10:39:20 2015 No.6714123 >"Criticizing privilege becomes a privilege—the world’s course is as dialectical as that"

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 10:39:50 2015 No.6714124 >>6714116 if you listen to music you either know what i mean or will attempt to own me by saying that voicing your chords in a way that was interesting decades ago doesn't change the fact that you're playing pop music. so i refuse

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 10:45:18 2015 No.6714132

>"When we criticize the barter principle as the identifying principle of thought, we want to realize the ideal of free and just barter. To date, this ideal is only a pretext. Its realization alone would transcend barter. Once critical theory has shown it up for what it is—an exchange of things that are equal and yet unequal—our critique of the inequality within equality aims at equality too, for all our skepticism of the rancor involved in the bourgeois egalitarian ideal that tolerates no qualitative difference. If no man had part of his labor withheld from him any more, rational identity would be a fact, and society would have transcended the identifying mode of thinking'\

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 10:49:06 2015 No.6714141

>"Experience forbids the resolution in the unity of consciousness of whatever appears contradictory. For instance, a contradiction like the one between the definition which an individual knows as his own and his “role,” the definition forced upon him by society when he would make his living—such a contradiction cannot be brought under any unity without manipulation, without the insertion of some wretched cover concepts that will make the crucial differences vanish.* Nor is it possible to unify the contradiction that the barter principle, which in present society enhances the productive forces, is simultaneously a growing threat to the existence of those forces."

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 10:54:40 2015 No.6714162 >>6714132 >>6714141 >all this writing to state a simple truism all systems have a set of tradeoffs

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 10:54:46 2015 No.6714165

>"Due to the inequality inherent in the concept of mediation, the subject enters into the object altogether differently from the way the object enters into the subject. An object can be conceived only by a subject but always remains something other than the subject, whereas a subject by its very nature is from the outset an object as well. Not even as an idea can we conceive a subject that is not an object; but we can conceive an object that is not a subject. To be an object also is part of the meaning of subjectivity; but it is not equally part of the meaning of objectivity to be a subject."

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 10:57:44 2015 No.6714177

>>6714162

Adorno predicted your response:

>"Direct communicability to everyone is not a criterion of truth. We must resist the all but
universal compulsion to confuse the communication of knowledge with knowledge itself, and to rate it higher, if ossible—whereas
at present each communicative step is falsifying truth and selling it out.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 11:08:06 2015 No.6714199

>>6713963
Truth is more important than mass appeal. And hegemonic structures obviously have a correspondence with reality, otherwise they wouldn't function. It is the fact that they are a form and medium of domination that makes them false just by virtue of being hegemonical.
>>6713970
What is unscientific about the Authoritarian Personality, exactly? Are you in earnest denying the relation between an emphasis on in-group coherence and outward hostility? You don't have to be a marxist to understand this.
>>6713974
Oh well, this is the one thing you probably could hold against Marcuse, his lack of distance from the students movement. That, however, doesn't devalue his theoretical work in the least.
>>6713996
>What is ridiculous is that people can believe that there is an overarching conspiracy of various groups dumbing down the masses, restricting freedoms with reckless abandon, and failing to educate people on what matter.
Ew, strawman. Critical theory doesn't claim it's a conspiracy, it is the brute fact of the reproductive process of society that makes these phenomena emerge.
>These grand theories ignore the practical and economic limitations of our institutions, the internal conflicts within institutions, the incredible complexity and difficulty of economics. It is ridiculous to start with a model of utopia to critique current conditions without taking into account very real and limiting constraints
This ks what you inevitably end up doing: making excuses. How very scientific. Not to speak lf the fact that you assume instutions to be immutable facts of life, which borders on mysticism.
>This knowledge can just as easily be instrumentalize for societal good and freedom
That would require a critical attitude, or as positivisrs call it, an unscientific approach. Scientific neutrality is uncritical towards its lwn conditions, there's no way around this.
>Positivists however do not think the scientist is trapped by his socially reality.
Scientific neutrality would be precisely this trap.
>Just pointing out an opposite or a heterodox idea does not move one towards a more accurate model of reality or true consciousness.
Oh it absolutely does.
>great literature lives on from simplistic and facile theories
I don't even want to know what kind of "literature" you read.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 11:08:12 2015 No.6714201

>>6714177
big deal, being able to predict a response means little.

Everybody has their own theories on how to do things better, very few people have knowledge to be able to execute or to provide realistic solutions. Armchair negations are nearly worthless because of this. They might be useful in provoking people along certain paths of inquiry and action, but this happen with critical theory anyways.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 11:17:40 2015 No.6714217

>>6714201

He had a response to this too!

>"The materialist longing to grasp the thing aims at the opposite: it is only in the absence of images that the full object could be conceived. Such absence concurs with the theological ban on images. Materialism brought that ban into secular form by not permitting Utopia to be positively pictured; this is the substance of its negativity. At its most materialistic, materialism comes to agree with theology. Its great desire would be the resurrection of the flesh, a desire utterly foreign to idealism, the realm of the absolute spirit. The perspective vanishing point of historic materialism would be its self-sublimation, the spirit’s liberation from the primacy of material needs in their state of fulfillment."

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 11:24:12 2015 No.6714231 File: 946 KB, 791x1518, Zeno_of_Citium_pushkin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 11:26:00 2015 No.6714235 >"In a sense, dialectical logic is more positivistic than the positivism that outlaws it. As thinking, dialectical logic respects that which is to be thought—the object—even where the object does not heed the rules of thinking."

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 11:33:14 2015 No.6714252 >>6714235 #rekt

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 11:34:43 2015 No.6714258

>"The subject must make up for what it has done to nonidentity. This is precisely what liberates it from the
semblance of its absolute being-for-itself. That semblance in turn is a product of identifying thought—of the thought which depreciates a thing to a mere sample of its kind or species only to convince us that we have the thing as such, without subjective addition."

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 11:36:46 2015 No.6714259

>>6714199
>strawman
not a strawman at all, it is right in Adorno's writing on Jazz and on the cultural industry. This line of thought has continued from Debord to Postman to Morozov. They impart some of it as unintentional, but a lot of they do not.
>This ks what you inevitably end up doing: making excuses. How very scientific. Not to speak lf the fact that you assume instutions to be immutable facts of life, which borders on mysticism.
Do you honestly believe that their are no constraints, do you think that the human condition today or anytime in the near future will be better off without institutions. This Utopian thinking of yours is deficient. Also nowhere did I say it is impossible, I just do not consider it realistic given the conditions of today or the near future.
>That would require a critical attitude, or as positivisrs call it, an unscientific approach. Scientific neutrality is uncritical towards its lwn conditions, there's no way around this.
I am willing to accept that value judgements have to be made. What I am getting at is that critical values are useless if one is out of touch with reality. One needs to acquire as much accurate knowledge as possible before making a judgement. I fail to see how negative dialectics provide anything of worth.
>Scientific neutrality would be precisely this trap
no, the role of the scientist is first and form most to collect accurate data, create models, and hypothesis dynamics.
>Oh it absolutely does.
no it does not, the negative space of any system is infinite

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 11:36:52 2015 No.6714261 >>6713974 >Adorno would surely have ended up calling the cops on the simple-minded strident bitch. Feckin lawled hard right here. Thanks anon

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 11:39:40 2015 No.6714265 >>6714217 >if we just imagine the Utopia we will have it. mystical nonsense

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 11:40:17 2015 No.6714266 >>6714259 >I fail to see how negative dialectics provide anything of worth. > I fail to see how negative dialectics >I fail to see >I fail. You said it anon!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 11:42:12 2015 No.6714269 >>6714266 Can you give some concrete example of where it provides anything of worth?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 11:44:00 2015 No.6714274 >>6714269 I've given at least five.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 11:46:24 2015 No.6714280 >>6714265 That's not even a very good (as in subtle) misconstrual.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 11:46:44 2015 No.6714281 >>6714274 you have given zero concrete examples m8.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 11:50:44 2015 No.6714292 >>6714281 The one quote aptly upbraids science for its tendency to reducing each thing as a species or as an instance of a generality, thus silencing the thing's particularity and uniqueness. It's neutrality has biases of its own.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 11:51:48 2015 No.6714297 >>6714280 I see no other way to read that given the context of the reply. If positivists were unable to deduce ideals then no technical progress would occur.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 11:54:16 2015 No.6714299 >>6714297 Technical progress is a lie. Technology promised the elimination of tedious labour. Everyone I know is working more than ever. Keep chasing that carrot, m8. Your feeling of independence and mastery is very useful for your overlords.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 11:55:25 2015 No.6714300 >>6714292 All description are going to abstract, science preserve uniqueness far more so than any other form of sociological description.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 11:55:35 2015 No.6714302

>>6714259
>not a strawman at all, it is right in Adorno's writing on Jazz and on the cultural industry
Look, this is not a conspiracy, this is how the culture industry works as a functional component of capitalist society. And if you have any idea how the media works, you'd know that this is absolutely spot on, manipulation is a big part of the deal.
>do you think that the human condition today or anytime in the near future will be better off without institutions
It was never about the abolition of institutions, or their replacement with better institutions. It is about the abolition of that out of which the institutions as we know them emerge, the process of capital.
>This Utopian thinking of yours is deficient
No, your lack of it is a deficiency, it traps you in false immediacy.
>I just do not consider it realistic given the conditions of today or the near future
This is precisely why critical theory argues negatively. If we'd know what to do, we'd probably just do it.
>One needs to acquire as much accurate knowledge as possible before making a judgement
A judgment in the descriptive sense, yes. An existential judgment, not really. The rejection of the fact that reasonable beings are being subjugated by reasonable beings does not require any amount of data.
>the role of the scientist is first and form most to collect accurate data, create models, and hypothesis dynamics
Again, in the natural sciences, this is unproblematic, largely, as the purpose of the natural sciences is indeed an indispensible fact of human existence, the intrumentalmutilization of nature. Social sciences are a different matter, without a rejection of the domination of man, they become its instrument, and this domination includes its own obfuscation, thus they also become untruthful.
>no it does not, the negative space of any system is infinite
We're talking about determinate negation here, pal, not some random shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 11:56:38 2015 No.6714304 File: 135 KB, 540x425, da.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6714299

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:00:16 2015 No.6714314 >>6714299 You're an idiot, there are multiple criteria by which technology can be judged in relation to its effectiveness. Maglev trains are qualitative leaps forward from primitive steam engines.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:01:24 2015 No.6714317 >>6714265 That is the precise opposite of what that quote says. It tells people to not imagine utopia, but arrive at it through criticizing non-utopia.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:02:03 2015 No.6714319 >>6714304 US been going up since the 70s

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:02:29 2015 No.6714321 >>6714304 Thanks for proving my point. To make its point, this graph must simplify the idea of labour to the wage relation. It cannot account for black markets or grey markets, undocumented wage-relations, etc. etc. Disgustingly reductionist.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:03:58 2015 No.6714326 >>6714314 Nice ad hominem mate.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:06:32 2015 No.6714334 >>6714314 Again, this utterly ignores social relations. Nice reductionism.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:08:41 2015 No.6714340

>>6714199
>It is the fact that they are a form and medium of domination that makes them false just by virtue of being hegemonical.
What do you mean by 'false?' Do you mean that a scientific institution operating under a hegemonic power is incapable of making accurate observations about states of affairs? This is lmy question, you've dodged it multiple times.
>Are you in earnest denying the relation between an emphasis on in-group coherence and outward hostility?
No, I'm not, I'm saying there isn't scientifically gathered evidence that corroborates the claims made about the concept. I know you don't like science but you're failing to accept that it does in fact matter.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:10:13 2015 No.6714341 >>6714340 Of course science matters. It is not enough, though.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:12:00 2015 No.6714344 >>6714326 The insult wasn't part of the argumrnt, obviously. >>6714334 And you've completely ignored objrctive technological advancement for the same of propping up a narrative that you know you can't defend. See also >>6714304.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:13:31 2015 No.6714346 >>6714341 My claim isn't that science is the only relevant thing, it's that a critique that explicitly abandons anything resembling the scientific method because it's what the hegemonic forces at work affirm it's utility is nonsensical.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:13:36 2015 No.6714347

>>6714340
>Do you mean that a scientific institution operating under a hegemonic power is incapable of making accurate observations about states of affairs?
To an extent, it is capable, of course, but it is part of a bigger picture which is in itself irrational. Being a positivist requires you to ignore this.
>I'm saying there isn't scientifically gathered evidence that corroborates the claims made about the concept.
Complete nonsense, it is one of the few instances of them doing actual empirical research of their own.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:15:24 2015 No.6714351 >>6714346 I agree.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:16:54 2015 No.6714357

>>6714302

>Look, this is not a conspiracy, this is how the culture industry works as a functional component of capitalist society. And if you have any idea how the media works, you'd know that this is absolutely spot on, manipulation is a big part of the deal.
It is not even close to being spot on, his theories have far too much over reach.

>It was never about the abolition of institutions, or their replacement with better institutions. It is about the abolition of that out of which the institutions as we know them emerge, the process of capital.
Institution have not just formed out of capital, but from a wide varieties of needs and have been heavily augmented

>No, your lack of it is a deficiency, it traps you in false immediacy.
I will take the trap of immediacy over the trap of delusions anyday.

>This is precisely why critical theory argues negatively. If we'd know what to do, we'd probably just do it.
Progress requires the accumulation of capital of all sorts, not just a set of ideals.

> The rejection of the fact that reasonable beings are being subjugated by reasonable beings does not require any amount of data.
?

>without a rejection of the domination of man, they become its instrument, and this domination includes its own obfuscation, thus they also become untruthful.
this is absurd, you are asking scientist to take an ideological stance because you afraid that the data may rationalize a system you dislike.

>We're talking about determinate negation here, pal, not some random shit.
might as well be random with some of the delusional theories that get cooked up

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:18:05 2015 No.6714361 >>6714344 Your misspelling of objective indicates you're angry and triggered. Sorry for that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:18:29 2015 No.6714362 >>6714317 how can you criticizing non-utopia for not being utopia without an image of utopia in your head?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:20:10 2015 No.6714364 >>6714362 Read Negative Dialectics for a great model of this.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:20:32 2015 No.6714366

>>6714347
>but it is part of a bigger picture which is in itself irrational.
So Adorno et all. claim, but again, I'm not convinced that their methodology allows them to reach sound conclusions about that sort of thing. I also don't see how the 'irrationality' of superscience does away with its uses. I'm not even a positivist, I'm just affirming the value of scientific rigor within critiques of society. Accurate truth claims are more desirable than inaccurate ones, and method determines the capabilitybof a system to arrive at accurate truth claims.
As for the second part of your post, it isn't as if the idea hasn't been criticized at all.

The study "has been subjected to considerable criticism"[19] since the 1950s, particularly for various methodological flaws, including sample bias and poor psychometric techniques.[20][page needed][need quotation to verify]

In 1973, Gaensslen et al.[21] found that, contrary to predictions by Adorno et al.,[need quotation to verify] rigidity/dogmatism is not intrinsically maladaptive; e.g., rigidity can be associated with discipline and productivity.[need quotation to verify]

In 1980, sociologist J.J. Ray[22] argued that the project of The Authoritarian Personality was seriously flawed[need quotation to verify] on several points: for not asking questions regarding libertarian politics (which according to Ray are typically more anti-authoritarian than right- or left-wing politics[need quotation to verify]); for failing to demonstrate that authoritarian/right-wing beliefs are correlated with psychopathology; and, most importantly, for failing to demonstrate that authoritarian beliefs are associated with authoritarian behavior. In 1993, over a decade later, the latter point was also criticized by Billings, et al.[23][better source needed]

The book concludes that right-wing, authoritarian governments produce hostility towards racial, religious or ethnic minorities. Psychologist Bob Altemeyer argued against that conclusion, saying that Fascist Italy was not characterized by antisemitism, and that Jews occupied high positions in Mussolini’s government until pressure from Hitler disenfranchised these Jews.[24]

Rubenstein’s research in Israel revealed that Orthodox Jews scored higher on right wing politics and authoritarianism as traits than Reform Jews, and that both groups scored higher than secular Jews. This could be taken as showing there was no relationship between these traits and antisemitism.[25]

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:20:36 2015 No.6714367 >>6714321 All of those thing existed years ago also. Using edge cases does not refute the trend.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:28:18 2015 No.6714389

>>6714367

At least 70% of the people I know have engaged in some form of unreported paid activity. While I understand my experience is not validly generalizable, it is enough to show that my points do not really qualify as "edge cases" taking into consideration probabilistics (i.e. the non-unique aspects of my experience).

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:28:57 2015 No.6714392 >>6714317 Absurd

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:33:10 2015 No.6714403 >>6714389 on a regular basis that would significantly raise the average number of hours worked?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:34:37 2015 No.6714409 >>6714403 At least half of that %70, yes.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:39:30 2015 No.6714420 >>6713680 Short for "terveisin" which means something like "best regards".

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:40:16 2015 No.6714423 >>6714361 It mostly indicates that I'm on a phone

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:43:17 2015 No.6714433

>>6714346
This thread isn't as awful as it might potentially have been, I suppose, but it's still pretty annoying to read at times.
One of the main posters - the guy who is quoting long passages from the "Negatve Dialectics" - clearly knows his Adorno but - as he is probably well aware by now, to be fair - he is "arguing" with someone who seems, as far as reading of Adorno goes, to be halfway through the "Jazz" essay, at best.
Let's get some things straight, then: there is really no such thing as a composite, hydra-headed "Cultural Marxism" that goes on about some need to "critique the cultural hegemony of positivist reductionism by revealing the power-relations inherent in all truth-claims" or whatever except in the heads of the neocon /pol/ types who attack this straw man, or possibly in the equally confused heads of a few half-educated hack academics who have vomited out into books called "Babby's First Critical Cultural Theory" or whatever all the actually completely disparate ideas that they half-digested on their own undergraduate courses.

The whole "hegemony" thing is Gramsci, not Adorno, so that can be gotten out of the way right away.

A trickier question, though, is the whole "anti-positivism" thing. It can't be denied that the first generation of the Frankfurt School DID take over the theme of the critique of positivism - that is to say, the critique of the idea that scientific truth is something simply "given" that is in no way altered or co-constituted by the knowing collective subject - from earlier forms of Hegelian Marxism. And clarity on this question hasn't been helped by the fact that this was initially the ONLY theme in first-generation Frankfurt School theory that was stressed and developed by the second generation (Habermas made his name in the 60s largely as a neo-Hegelian critic of "positivism").

But anyone who has actually read Adorno knows that the critical philosophy that he developed in his main works was as much a critique of the "anti-positivist" insistence of Hegel and the Hegelian Marxists that "collective subjectivity is present in all objectivity" as it was of positivism itself. Adorno tore apart nearly ALL of the key notions - "reification", "alienation" - that writers like the young Marx and Lukacs used to argue that "substance is subject and subject substance" on the social plane. So, in fact, Adorno's relation to "positivism" and to the idea of "objectivity" is a hell of a lot more complicated than this idea of him as a "critic of the hegemonic ideology" allows it to be.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 12:54:55 2015 No.6714454 >>6714433 Aha. Someone else knows their Adorno. Nice to see. It gets a little exhausting knocking this tired ole scarecrow about by oneself.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 13:04:30 2015 No.6714482

>>6714433
I haven't read Adorno so I'm glad to know my arguments against 'him' ITT were actually directed at strawmen constructed by people who have no idea what he was talking about or how to properly formulate his ideas, which I want to believe are more sensible than the ones being tossed around here.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 13:05:33 2015 No.6714487 >>6712958 Why do you even waste time with continental philosophy? It's literally indistinguishable from Jaden Smith's tweets

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 13:08:47 2015 No.6714502 File: 55 KB, 600x516, kd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6714487 http://junkee.com/who-said-it-jaden-and-willow-smith-or-the-great-philosophers-of-history/45497

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 13:10:04 2015 No.6714511 >>6714487 > I don't understand it, therefore it must have no meaning Give this fine anon a chair in Formal Logic!

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 13:12:11 2015 No.6714516 >>6714511 I understand it, it doesn't take a genius to understand jaden smith. It's just boring, banal and without any value.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 13:17:48 2015 No.6714539 >>6714516 >without any value Nope. It's great entertainment. What could possibly be more valuable than that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 13:18:37 2015 No.6714544 >>6714516 A little too harsh on Jaden, you should be praising him for his clarity and brevity compared to continentals

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 13:21:25 2015 No.6714556 >>6714544 Yes, he's at least less intentionally obtuse. >>6714539 Well, I guess you're right.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 13:21:52 2015 No.6714558 >>6714487 >continental philosophy Because >It's literally indistinguishable from Jaden Smith's tweets It's not true. It certainly applies to a lot of postmodern philosophers, but hardly to most non-analytical philosophers.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 13:25:51 2015 No.6714571
File: 65 KB, 620x372, Ren--Descartes-011.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Reminder that IN HIS OWN DAY, Descartes' peers were so embarrassed by his thought that they politely tried to ruin his reputation.

If Cartesian thought hadn't somehow survived all attempts to destroy it we'd be living in some sort of space age non-capitalist wonderland.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 13:27:39 2015 No.6714576 >>6714571 You're exxagerating but decartes certainly did more bad than good in philosophy of mind, that much is sure.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 13:28:39 2015 No.6714580 >>6714576 *one x two g

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 13:33:19 2015 No.6714596 >>6714571 Cartesian philosophy was stillborn. The Cartesian ego is all that remains of his philosophy, and then only as a psychological element of the Weltgeist. No one takes the Cogito seriously anymore.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 13:33:26 2015 No.6714597 >>6713371 plz ignore the obvious fact that the US is the size of all of western Europe combined

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 13:34:55 2015 No.6714609 >>6714571 When the winds died down and the dust once again rested upon the ground, men and women gathered from a thousand miles in all directions to catch a glimpse of the fated shirtstorm birth. Anon delivered.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 13:57:08 2015 No.6714680

>>6714357
>his theories have far too much over reach
An example might come in handy now. Something he claims that good, positivistic sociologists have disproven.
>Institution have not just formed out of capital, but from a wide varieties of needs and have been heavily augmented
Even those that are older than capitalism have been heavily modified to the point where their purpose is indistinguishable from the utilization imperative of capital.
>the trap of delusions
What exactly IS the delusion you are talking about?
>Progress requires the accumulation of capital
And there we have it, you cannot even think about progress without denying it in the very same moment.
>this is absurd, you are asking scientist to take an ideological stance because you afraid that the data may rationalize a system you dislike
No, I am asking a scientist to take his own position in the ideological apparatus into account, as otherwise he is doomed to become an instrument of ideology wether he wills it or not.
>with some of the delusional theories that get cooked up
You seem to have something particular in mind there, what is it?
>>6714366
>for not asking questions regarding libertarian politics
Libertarianism was hardly even a thing at the time of the study.
>for failing to demonstrate that authoritarian beliefs are associated with authoritarian behavior
That is the weirdest criticism ever.
>Mussolini
There actually was massive antisemitism among the fascists even without substantial pressure.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifesto_of_Race
That being said, Italian fascism is a very unique and interesting phenomenon that often got falsely subsumed under the general authoritarian right-wingers of the time, most notably Hitler.
>Rubenstein’s research in Israel revealed that Orthodox Jews scored higher on right wing politics and authoritarianism as traits than Reform Jews, and that both groups scored higher than secular Jews. This could be taken as showing there was no relationship between these traits and antisemitism
Ok, I have no idea how to comment on this. If you don't see how this criticism is pants on head retarded, may god have mercy on your soul.

I'm not saying this particular piece of sound empirical science was completely flawless, which is the exception among positivist social science to this day, but those critics were clearly much dumber than the ones they criticized.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 14:25:27 2015 No.6714737

>>6712976
it's amusing that Adorno was the last major thinker to speak out against cultural degeneration despite being a Marxist. I also love how any modern mention of Adorno has to involve the author saying "but I disagree with Adorno's dismissal of popular culture, that was very wrongthinkful of him, muh free jazz". You can 'fight the system' all you like but don't you dare stop consuming GoT and plebshit music...

>>6713141
>Sociology
>empirical knowledge
I bet you believe it when people say 'a new psychological study has proved...'

>>6714433
I wish it was true that /pol/'s potpourri 'Cultural Marxism' wasn't real, but I would say it's become the dominant strain of collegepleb Marxism (because how can we have the revolution before we have preferred pronouns and an end to the hegemonic violence that positivist hegemony uh, violences on our bodies, right?). There are far more 'Cultural Marxists' who believe in 'CM' and want to propagate it than there are /pol/acks who use it as a boogeyman.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 14:26:54 2015 No.6714742 >>6713687 in an ugly kind of pitiable way

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 14:35:04 2015 No.6714762

>>6714304
this doesnt account for the fact that people are now expected to answer emails, prepare reports, emgage in conferences, etc outside of their traditional work hours. also undocumented workers, undocumented hours, and the broadening of worker responsibility arent takrn into account

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 14:49:38 2015 No.6714797
File: 53 KB, 216x313, notesonlove.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6714737
>Adorno ranting about degeneration
>I was on a ship that had been boarded by pirates. They clambered up the sides, there wre even some women among them. But my wish that they should be over-powered prevailed. At any rate, in the next scene their fate was decided. They all had to die; to be shot and their bodies thrown over board. I objected, but not from any feeling of humanity. It would be a pity, I said, that the women should be killed without our having taken pleasure with them. Everyone agreed with me. I went down into the space where the pirates were being held... One was German. She fitted exactly my image of a tart - in a red dress, her hair peroxide blond like a bar-girl, on the plump side, but very attractive; her profile made her look a little sheep-like. The other girl was a delightful young mulatto, dressed quite simply in a brown knitted woollen dress, the kind of woman one sees in Harlem. The women went into a side room and I told them to undress...

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 15:10:44 2015 No.6714854

>>6712976
it's worth noting that adorno died before free jazz and avant-garde jazz really took off. he probably dismissed jazz after listening to masturbatory bebop and then never got around to listening to the good stuff.

There are less than 10 good bebop albums.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 15:11:54 2015 No.6714859 >>6713808 it doesn't take musical literacy to understand jazz.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 15:15:51 2015 No.6714865

>>6714797
Damn, Dream Notes is one of the best things in existence.

>I was talking with my girl-friend X about the erotic arts with which I thought her conversant. I asked her whether she had ever done it par le cul. She responded very frankly, saying that she could do it on some days, but not on others. Today was a day when it was quite impossible. This seemed quite plausible to me, but I wondered whether she was speaking the truth or whether this wasn't just a prostitute's pretext for refusing me. Then she said that she could do quite different things, more beautiful, Hungarian ones, of which I had never heard. In reply to my eager questioning, she said, 'Well, there was Babamüll, for example.' She (15) started to explain it to me. It soon turned out that this supposed perversion was in reality a highly complicated, to me entirely opaque, but evidently illegal finance operation, something like a safe way of passing worthless cheques. I pointed out to her that this had nothing to do with the erotic techniques she had promised me. However, she stuck to her view and replied in a supercilious tone that I should pay close attention and be patient - the rest would come of its own accord. But since I had completely lost track of the connection, I despaired of ever finding out what Babamüll was.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 15:33:30 2015 No.6714928 >>6713465 Art music, music with merit. >>6713808 Nope, because there is nothing to understand, those with a remedial knowledge simply like to believe there is. >>6714854 There is no good jazz, just as there is no good YA.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 15:39:02 2015 No.6714945 >>6714928 I recognize your posting style, le art music man, from /mu/, you are not fooling anyone.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 15:39:27 2015 No.6714946 >>6712958 The notion that it's possible to "set a field back" without censoring or burning books, but merely by "contaminating" it with novel ideas, is inherently reactionary.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 15:41:50 2015 No.6714958 >>6714945 Why would I deny my identity? I've always been serious.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 15:43:45 2015 No.6714972

>>6714680
>Libertarianism was hardly even a thing at the time of the study.
That doesn't seem true at all, libertarian thought has existed for a very long time.
>That is the weirdest criticism ever
Not really. If you can't demonstrate that a belief is connected to a behavior, you have no reason to assume that such a connection exists.
>If you don't see how this criticism is pants on head retarded, may god have mercy on your soul.
That isn't a response to the substantial content of the critique.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 15:44:01 2015 No.6714974 >>6714946 Not really, unless the very notion of a paradigmatic shift is reactionary, or just disbelief in continuous progress. In that sense, Adorno would have been a reactionary.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 15:51:28 2015 No.6715002

>>6714972
>That doesn't seem true at all, libertarian thought has existed for a very long time.
The american kind of libertarianism, which is what the critique is referencing, only really became a thing in the 50s. Before that, libertarianism was just another name for left-wing anarchism.
>If you can't demonstrate that a belief is connected to a behavior, you have no reason to assume that such a connection exists.
Apart from how stupid that sentence is (the belief that a thing should be done is obviously connected to doing it), that would have been a different study. The Authoritarian Personality was about belief.
>That isn't a response to the substantial content of the critique.
That doesn't change the fact that you deemed it a good thing to cite, despite of how ridiculously stupid it is.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 15:52:25 2015 No.6715008 File: 5 KB, 278x181, adksfja kdfjaklejf.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Habermas on the account of him being so hard to understand. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA4iw3V0o1c

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 15:57:01 2015 No.6715029 >>6714928 >"There is no good jazz" >John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Charles Mingus, Bill Evans, Pat Metheny, Confirmed for ignorant fuck. You're the equivalent of a highschool pothead saying books are shitty and pretentious .

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 16:00:55 2015 No.6715046

>>6715002
American libertarianism existed in the 19th century. You're thinking of objectivism.
>(the belief that a thing should be done is obviously connected to doing it), that would have been a different study. The Authoritarian Personality was about belief.
The connection may not be as obvious as you think. You keep asserting it but you've provided no evidence.
>That doesn't change the fact that you deemed it a good thing to cite, despite of how ridiculously stupid it is.
Again, you haven't addressed the critique. Do you take offense at the idea of fascist Jews?

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 16:03:33 2015 No.6715054
File: 42 KB, 540x304, Adorno and women.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6714865
It's actually been years since I read Adorno - though for a time in the 90s I read almost nothing else - so I wasn't even aware of the existence of the "Dream Notes".
The simultaneously comical and somehow admirable sexual frankness - particularly the detail that Adorno seems to have been obsessed with anal intercourse at a period long before it became normal to be obsessed with it - reminds me of what a problematical role he has played in my life, maybe in the life of a whole class and generation of Europeans.
I remember quarrelling violently with a German friend who refused to sympathize in my scorn and unconditional condemnation of the group of feminist students who, some time during the 68 protests in Frankfurt, disrupted a lecture of Adorno's by going up onto the little rostrum he was speaking from, taking their clothes off and trying to caress him. Their action seemed to me, at the time, to be the epitome of adolescent self-regard and self-overestimation. The very idea of such media-indoctrinated little bimbos believing they could put the author of the Odyssey chapter of the "Dilaectic of Enlightenment" in touch with his own repressed sexuality made me spit with rage. My friend insisted on vaguely insinuating that "there may have been much more to it than that" and we actually came to blows over the matter. In those days, I suppose, I thought of Adorno as a kind of secular saint: someone who had brilliantly dissected the pathologies of patriarchal sexuality but didn't personally suffer from them.
Having read, since then, several of the volumes of personal reminiscences that have been published, mostly in German, by people who studied with him or taught with him in Frankfurt in the 50s and 60s, I have to concede that I was quite wrong about that one and my friend was right. Despite his undoubtedlly deep understanding of the "negativity" of the male sexual persona in the world that Man has created - and despite his personal resemblance to W. C. Fileds - Adorno was a voracious sexual predator in his middle and old age and the girls who humiliated him mid-lecture that day had all or most of them, I'd bet, been sexual partners of his. He behaved as he did, of course, in service to his own ideal of preserving a subjectivity porous to the objectivity of animal Nature - but my ideal of him has been tarnished nonetheless.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 16:07:40 2015 No.6715066 >>6715029 None of them are good you musically illiterate child. >You're the equivalent of a highschool pothead saying books are shitty and pretentious . Jazz can't be compared to literature, it's drivel. But please, adhom harder

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 16:09:46 2015 No.6715073

>>6715046
>American libertarianism existed in the 19th century.
Not as an ideology that could be meaningfully placed on today's (!) version of the left-right dichotomy, and not by the name, Libertarianism.
>You keep asserting it but you've provided no evidence
I asserted it once. If there is doubt about the connection between a political belief and political action, that wasn't the case at the time.
>Do you take offense at the idea of fascist Jews?
No, I take offense at the idea that anyone would be stupid enough to think that their existence is an argument against the necessary connection of fascism and anti-semitism.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 16:15:02 2015 No.6715096

>>6715054
>Adorno was a voracious sexual predator in his middle and old age and the girls who humiliated him mid-lecture that day had all or most of them, I'd bet, been sexual partners of his.
God, you're one retarded old fuck.
Here's a hint to why he would have an anal fixation: he had a gay affair with Kracauer in his late 20s. An "expert" like you should know that, instead of spouting nonsense on the internet.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 16:20:30 2015 No.6715117

>>6715096
You'll have to take me through your logic here step by step.

I do vaguely remember hearing some claim that he had an affair with Kracauer as a young man.

But I don't see how that makes his serial seductions of girls 30 and 40 years younger than him in the 60s "bullshit", or any less interesting a detail in its own right.

Particularly as the reference to anal intercourse in his dream report was with a female sexual partner.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 16:21:32 2015 No.6715120 >>6715066 DFW, Pynchon, Joyce, and Nabokov, are all shit. Their writing is garbage. And their "prose" is pretentious drivel. That's how retarded you sound.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 16:23:22 2015 No.6715128

>>6715073
>Not as an ideology that could be meaningfully placed on today's (!) version of the left-right dichotomy
That's literally the criticism: the study fails to account for stances that fall outside of this dichotomy. The fact that it didn't go by that name doesn't change the fact that the doctrine existed and occupied a similar position outside the mainstream political dichotomy.
>I asserted it once. If there is doubt about the connection between a political belief and political action, that wasn't the case at the time.
>necessary connection
As someone else pointed out, Italian fascism wasn't antisemitic. The claim that fascism is antisemitic becomes tautological by this account: this state is antisemitic and therefore fascist; this state is fascist and therefore antisemitic. In reality what constitutes fascism is an emphasis on a strong state for the good of the nation and a focus on military-industrialand propagandistic production. The proposition that Israel is incapable of being considered a fascist state, or cannot possibly be accused of being such a thing, on account of the Jews that constitute the majority of its people, is ludicrous. Fascism isn't defined by antisemitism according to any model that takes I to account the psychological, sociological, economic, etc. underpinnings of fascism and antisemitism.

This is not a defense of either fascism or antisemitism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 16:25:12 2015 No.6715137 >>6715120 >DFW, Pynchon, Joyce, and Nabokov >not shit Typical jazz listener.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 16:28:09 2015 No.6715150

>>6715117
Oh well, maybe I was just taking offense at the characterization as a sexual predator, which ks quite a different thing from a serial seducer.

Anyway, I do believe that his former gayness might have been conductive towards him developing an interest in anal intercourse before it became the meme it is today.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 16:32:23 2015 No.6715161 >>6715137 >not realizing i was simply inserting writers this boards jerks off to >intelligent enough to follow music and pay attention motivic development in jazz I'm starting to see why you think it's all shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 16:32:35 2015 No.6715163 >>6715120 No, they're actually decent to great, they have actual merit. Jazz is like ASoIaF, crap that tries to read literary, but ends up being the polar opposite.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 16:33:37 2015 No.6715172 >>6715161 >intelligent enough to follow music and pay attention motivic development in jazz There is nothing to follow, nothing develops. Laymen are adorable.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 16:38:13 2015 No.6715180

>>6715128
>That's literally the criticism: the study fails to account for stances that fall outside of this dichotomy. The fact that it didn't go by that name doesn't change the fact that the doctrine existed and occupied a similar position outside the mainstream political dichotomy
A study of right-wing attitudes should have acknowledged a positiln that cannot be properly categorized as right-wing? Why?
>As someone else pointed out, Italian fascism wasn't antisemitic
I've addressed that by linking to the wikipedia article on the Manifesto of Race. Pay attention ffs.
>The proposition that Israel is incapable of being considered a fascist state, or cannot possibly be accused of being such a thing, on account of the Jews that constitute the majority of its people, is ludicrous.
That was not my propsition, how dense are you? No, jewish fascists are an exception in that they cannot become antisemites out of a necessity that, in this one case, cancels out what is otherwise a fundamental aspect of authoritarian movements.
Also, Israel cannot be considered a fascist state because it is a parliamentary democracy that allows arab parties that call for its destruction to be elected into parliament.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 16:38:58 2015 No.6715185 >>6713141 >empirical knowledge you mean reified bourgeois knowledge that can't answer the question of Being? Read chapter one of Phenomenology of Spirit before you post about shit you clearly don't understand.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 16:42:45 2015 No.6715196

>>6715163
Yes. But imagine a normie picking up one of their books, without any literary background, reading 50 pages of it and proclaiming "this is shit". You don't have to like Jazz, but before you criticize it you must at least listen to it.
I have a strong feeling you guys have listened to one or two Kenny G tracks or some post-bop and written off the whole genre. Remind how this is different from someone reading a few chapters of Wallace or Pynchon and burning the book?

>>6715172
>There is nothing to follow, nothing develops.
What Jazz have you listened to? Seriously give me an artist and a song. The essence of jazz is development. The first 20-30 seconds of most jazz songs are musicians introducing us to a melody, and the rest of the song is them developing the melody into their own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAsUNTHRjaM

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 16:51:39 2015 No.6715224

>>6715196
>but before you criticize it you must at least listen to it.
I have you illiterate turd.
>I have a strong feeling you guys have listened to one or two Kenny G tracks or some post-bop and written off the whole genre
False, I've heard much, much more than that.

Please learn to read.
>What Jazz have you listened to? Seriously give me an artist and a song. The essence of jazz is development. The first 20-30 seconds of most jazz songs are musicians introducing us to a melody, and the rest of the song is them developing the melody into their own.
That's not development.
>jazz songs
I should be laughing at your stupidity.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 16:52:43 2015 No.6715229

>>6715180
>Why?
Because of its anti-authoritarian nature. A theory of authoritarianism intended to combat the so-called authoritarian personality should account for anti-authoritarian elements outside of the immediate position of the author's leftist stance.
>I've addressed that by linking to the wikipedia article on the Manifesto of Race. Pay attention ffs.
You should also pay attention:
>In the sixteen years of Benito Mussolini's dictatorship prior to this, there had not been any race laws; Mussolini had held the view that a small contingent of Italian Jews had lived in Italy "since the days of the Kings of Rome" (a reference to the Bené Roma) and should "remain undisturbed".[1] There were even some Jews in the National Fascist Party, such as Ettore Ovazza who in 1935 founded the Jewish Fascist paper La Nostra Bandiera.[2] The German influence on Italian policy upset the established balance in Fascist Italy and proved highly unpopular to most Italians, to the extent that Pope Pius XI sent a letter to Mussolini protesting against the new laws.[3] Among the 42 signers of the "Manifesto of Race" were two medical doctors (S. Visco and N. Fende), an anthropologist (L. Cipriani), a zoologist (E. Zavattari) and a statistician (F. Savorgnan).[4]
>No, jewish fascists are an exception in that they cannot become antisemites out of a necessity that, in this one case, cancels out what is otherwise a fundamental aspect of authoritarian movements.
>a fundamental aspect
Again, this is only true if you assume that a necessary connection exists. As I've said there are more generally accepted theories of what constitutes fascism that
don't emphasize antisemitism except as a contingent historical element of some fascist states because that's what it is.
>jewish fascists are an exception in that they cannot become antisemites
It seems like you've admitted with this that a definition of fascism that assumes antisemitism as a necessary and not contingent element is more accurate than one that demands a necessary connection between the subject and the predicate.

I'm not calling Israel fascist, I'm just saying that it *could* be a fascist state in a possible world where it *isn't* a parliamentary democracy.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 16:55:24 2015 No.6715236

>>6715196
Here's a simple example of the progression of Jazz. Sample about 20-30 seconds of each track.

>All the Things You Are

1) Ella Fitgerald
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPapxr8GvGA
>classic broadway version
>singer and band

2) Charlie Parker
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBfNjx9_8W4
>saxophone replaces singer
>harmony and melody are very apparent
>relationship to broadway classic is clear

3) Present day jazz
>artists strip melody and harmony from original tune
>artists build an almost new structure
>harmony & melody are not pronounced
>without knowledge of the original tune you might not be able to follow along
>focus is on individuality and new take

>Pat Metheny
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC_-Tmp3mOw

>Keith Jarrett
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SY9cTgXp74M

>Bill Evans
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-IBKEkXGZk

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 16:57:47 2015 No.6715244 >>6715224 >False, I've heard much, much more than that. Then why have you not given an example of an artist and song that you dislike? You've been asked many times.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 16:59:28 2015 No.6715253 >>6715236 I'm more educated on jazz than you, please be quiet already, layman. >>6715244 >song I'm going to leave if you don't shut your illiterate mouth.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 17:10:35 2015 No.6715289

>>6715229
>It seems like you've admitted with this that a definition of fascism that assumes antisemitism as a necessary and not contingent
Should read
>It seems like you've admitted with this that a definition of fascism that assumes antisemitism as a contingent and not necessary

Sorry, phone.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 17:11:08 2015 No.6715292
File: 613 KB, 295x221, rmdSxh.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>6715253
Well I'm done here. This is why I've repeatedly asked you to give me an example of jazz that you dislike. These songs are very different, but they are all jazz. There's hard bop, straight, latin, and fusion/world.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__OSyznVDOY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEGCzNFWsNM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiKt8DxBpeg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mkLoSqqvq8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIH3fNUsbnA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNbD1JIH344

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 17:12:48 2015 No.6715297

>>6715229
>A theory of authoritarianism intended to combat the so-called authoritarian personality should account for anti-authoritarian elements
Seriously, why? If you analyze authoritarians, why does your focus have to include the opposite of that?
>citing the article about Mussolinis antisemitic laws
>as proof that the fascists weren't antisemitic
perfect.
>As I've said there are more generally accepted theories of what constitutes fascism that
don't emphasize antisemitism except as a contingent historical element of some fascist states because that's what it is.
Then explain to me why virtually every right-authoritarian movement has featured antisemitic policies, with with jewish fascists being the one continous exception, for the obvious reason that jews can't be antisemites.
And take note, jewish fascists do seem to have an equivalent of the international jewish enemy, which is, surprise, left-liberal cosmopolitan jews. And there are literally right-wing israelis who think of the Frankfurt School as a conspiracy to destroy all races, just that in this case it includes the jewish race. The next logical step of the antisemitic worldview is one they could obviously not take: that the jews are the devil. But they're still close enough to make the connection obvious.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 17:14:46 2015 No.6715304 >>6715292 I don't think you know what a song is, you illiterate moron.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 17:20:16 2015 No.6715323

>>6715297
>why?
You're pretty dense.
>Mussolinis antisemitic laws
Which were passed because of an alliance with the Nazis *16 YEARS* into Italian fascism. For *16 years* there were not antisemitic laws under Italian fascism. Read the fucking article you linked, you dunce.
>Then explain to me why virtually every right-authoritarian movement has featured antisemitic policies, with with jewish fascists being the one continous exception, for the obvious reason that jews can't be antisemites.
Again, Italian fascism existed for 16 years prior to the passing of antisemitic laws. Historical contingency can account for antisemitism's *frequent* appearance in fascist doctrine. The mere possibility, which you admit is possible, if Jewish fascism renders your insistence on a necessary connection absurd.
>continuous exception
You mean a continuous example of the lack of a necessar connection between antisemitism and fascism?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 17:22:33 2015 No.6715330 >>6713024 counterpoint: mingus ah um

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 17:23:44 2015 No.6715335 >>6715330 No, that just proves my point.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 17:24:09 2015 No.6715338 File: 44 KB, 400x319, dedekorkut1_13793480774.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Stand the fucking back, Al-Ghazali single-handedly destroyed Islamic Golden Age of Intellectuality. You see Islamic countries of today right? I think so.

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 17:27:26 2015 No.6715348

>>6715323
>You're pretty dense.
He didn't want to study anti-authoritarians, anti-authoritarians are fine. Why would they be studied if you want to know about the authoritarian personality? It makes zero fucking sense.
>Which were passed because of an alliance with the Nazis
This is bullshit, there was absolutely no pressure to do this.
>The mere possibility, which you admit is possible, if Jewish fascism
Neither of us can actually be sure of that possibility, mind you.
>You mean a continuous example of the lack of a necessar connection between antisemitism and fascism?
I think I did demonstrate how they come as close to being antisemites as a jewish person possibly can come. Maybe your own concept of antisemitism is pretty naive?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 17:28:41 2015 No.6715350 >>6715338 He was a cunt alright, but from what I've heard the mongols had a bigger role in fucking islamic shit up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 17:29:33 2015 No.6715357 >>6715330 don't waist your time. he hasn't even listened to jazz.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 17:30:33 2015 No.6715358 >>6715357 waste*

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 17:30:41 2015 No.6715362 >>6715350 Yea, last nail on the coffin. Limp dick cut of brutally.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 17:34:59 2015 No.6715375 >>6715066 Mingus is pretty good

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 17:36:14 2015 No.6715381

>>6715348
>This is bullshit, there was absolutely no pressure to do this.
Confirmed ignoramus. Again, read the article you linked. Or learn something about WWII, or international relations, or anything, really.
>Neither of us can actually be sure of that possibility, mind you.
Yes we can. Your definition is flawed and based on a knee-jerk emotional reaction and an inability to look beyond the fact that the Holocaust happened.
>I think I did demonstrate how they come as close to being antisemites as a jewish person possibly can come
I disagree, you didn't demonstrate very much.
>Maybe your own concept of antisemitism is pretty naive?
The rivalries you mentioned within Judaism don't seem antisemitic to me, to be honest. Or if they are, it's factional within Judaism, and it can't possibly be applied by the Jews in question to all Jews. Protestants think Catholics are out to take over the world for Satan; does that make Protestants antichristian? The answer is no: they're rival sects that can't oppose the thing they have in common without annihilating their own reason for existence.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 17:36:26 2015 No.6715385 File: 346 KB, 1829x788, positivism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6713325

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 17:42:23 2015 No.6715404 File: 27 KB, 375x450, aristotle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>6712958 try centuries >let's classify animals based on how they move >plants don't have male and female >geocentrism

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 17:46:55 2015 No.6715419 >>6715357 I have, don't make fallacious statements you mong. >>6715375 Nope

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 17:48:48 2015 No.6715423

>>6715381
>Again, read the article you linked
Well this is awkward:
>From the Nazi side there had not been pressure because Italy allied itself even in this subject of race with Germany; and Mussolini had been himself ideologically expounding upon the need to preserve the stock of the "European Aryan" race for years.
>Yes we can.
How?
>Protestants think Catholics are out to take over the world for Satan; does that make Protestants antichristian? The answer is no: they're rival sects that can't oppose the thing they have in common without annihilating their own reason for existence.
Okay, so on the one hand you say it is illegitimate to draw a structural comparison between the beliefs of right-wing jews and right-wing antisemites, and then you compare this to the conflict between christian sects? This is beyond silly.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 17:50:32 2015 No.6715428 >>6713325 >big words hurt my brain: the post

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 17:52:22 2015 No.6715433

>>6715423
And yet Italian fascism still existed for 16 years without antisemitic laws.
I was referring to your claim that some sects of Judaism are antisemitic. Hating a group of Jews for disagreeing with your interpretation if Judaism isn't antisemitism, it's an internal rivalry within Judaism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 17:52:23 2015 No.6715435 >>6715404 This bait is kind of meh

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 18:11:42 2015 No.6715508

>>6715433
>And yet Italian fascism still existed for 16 years without antisemitic laws.
There's that, indeed. Iirc, I actually mentioned that Italian fascism is a rather weird phenomenon for a couple of reasons, and that grouping other right-wing authoritarians under their chosen name was probably a bad idea. Still, I don't believe Mussolini's antisemitic policies and remarks were fake, sucking up doesn't sound like the Duce.
>I was referring to your claim that some sects of Judaism are antisemitic
What is wrong with you if you thought that's what I said? First of all, I wasn't talking about sects, but rather about political fringe movments. Which are sort of sectarian most of the time, yes, if you want say that pork-eating areligious nationalists from the former soviet union are a sect of judaism. And more importantly I didn't say they were antisemitic, I said their views had as much similarity with antisemitism as possible for anything a jewish person can believe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 18:17:45 2015 No.6715519 >>6715508 >I said their views had as much similarity with antisemitism as possible for anything a jewish person can believe. My point stands, then: there is no necessary connection between antisemitism and fascism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 18:22:58 2015 No.6715533 >>6715385 Facts are still facts

Anonymous Sat Jun 20 18:26:11 2015 No.6715541

>>6715519
I never said those people were fascists thoug, maybe they can#t become proper fascists because their judaism gets in the way? Maybe they're tryhards who will never get it done?
I'm fucking with you, of course they can be fascists, they'll just have to do with ersatz antisemitism.
Also, I sort of get the vibe that you are deliberately misrepresenting Adorno's account of the connection between fascism and antisemitism.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jun 20 18:38:54 2015 No.6715576 >>6715533 They are indeed. It's important, however, not to mix the facts up with your interpretations of them.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 21 00:45:27 2015 No.6716983 >>6715185 lol, Bagel shit. Why would I take anyone's word on phenomenology over my lived experience. Phenomenology is useless for anything other than writing drivel in a cafe

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 21 00:48:12 2015 No.6716995 >>6715576 yes, Continental interpretations just ignore the inconvent ones and the ones they do not like

>>	Anonymous Sun Jun 21 01:37:39 2015 No.6717136 >>6715029 >john Coltrane >miles Davis This just goes to show how far jazz music has to go to be considered a serious art form

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature