Lebensphilosophie (was: Summary of Jargon...)

[j laari]

Greetings!

Ralph, few questions:

>  Farber was very
> critical of Husserl's subjective idealism but took his usable techniques
> seriously.  Farber, however, had nothing but contempt for Heidegger.

How Husserl and Heidegger belong together? Is it Farber's idea to
think of them as representing same philosophical standpoint?

> We need to remember that Adorno and Horkheimer were
> materialists, though strange materialists (...)

Where was the strangeness of their materialism (theoretically, I
mean)?

> However, there were other anti-positivist materialists (e.g. a
> whole lineage in the USA) who developed independently of Marxism though
> were ultimately sympathetic, like Sellars and Farber. They criticized both
> positivism and reactionary lebensphilosophie.

What was 'reactionary lebensphilosophie'? How do you understand 100
years old philosophy of life, "Lebensphilosophie"?

I think the main reason for the contempt of Lebensphilosophie is
Lukacs' stalinist pamphlet (you've been referring to during the recent
years). The problem with such a mockery is that it gives a totally
false presentation of Lebensphilosophie as philosophical standpoint.
After all, what reactionary is with a view, that phenomenal and
experiential "world" is grounded on (and comes up from) "life" that
actually means a living human body? You should take a look at Rudolph
Weingartner's "Experience and culture. The philosophy of Georg Simmel"
(1962). Weingartner gives probably the best - the most advanced -
interpretation of Simmel's philosophy that was the culmination of the
Lebensphilosophie. Another example of strange materialism, I'd say.
Today, of course, it's as outdated as any standpoint from previous
centuries. However, 100 years ago it was progressive moment in
philosophy.

I think that Adorno despised Lukacs with a good reason; he wasn't only
a pathetic political arriviste, but also a philosophical obscurantist.

Sincerely, Jukka L