[FRA:] Marcuse and heidegger

[Ralph Dumain]

While much of this reminds me of what I object to in Marcuse, I have no 
problem with the concept of 'false needs' and certainly not of the 
liberating potential of technology in spite of its alleged 
negatives.  Where Marcuse differs from Heidegger he is progressive; insofar 
as he inherits Heidegger's ideas he is reactionary.

Adorno is my favorite of the F.S.; still I have a great liking for 
Horkheimer's programme of the 1930s, and I'm not yet convinced Adorno's 
perspective is superior.

At 07:18 PM 2/17/2006 +0000, simon smith wrote:

>Chapters five and six of 'One Dimensional Man' explicitly use terminology 
>and ideas derived from Heidegger (e.g. p126, Abacus edition). Marcuse 
>tries explicitly to show the identity of the principles of modern science 
>and method with the technology of capitalist society. He's prepared to 
>identify modern industrialism with capitalism. In reference to the 
>computer (here we are!) he denies that the technology is neutral - "when 
>technics becomes the universal form of material production, it 
>circumscribes an entire culture; it projects a historical totality - a 
>world" (p127).
>
>Marcuse never gave up his phenomenological groundings, and his debt to 
>Heidegger (who was of course his teacher in the late twenties), which is 
>obvious from the above - I don't know enough about Heidegger to say any 
>more than that.
>In note 4 on page 113 he distances himself from Heidegger - he says that 
>these matters are not "of existential concern" - "the history of mankind 
>has given definite answers to the 'question of being' and has given them 
>in very concrete terms, which have proved their efficacy. The 
>technological universe is one of them'".
>Marcuse relies on the "progress of scientific rationality" to provide the 
>very means to its end (p181). The mechanisation of labour would "open the 
>possibility of an essentially new human reality." (p181), which must be 
>achieved politically and collectively. Despite one or two caveats, Marcuse 
>seem optimistic that that technics will provide the means for the 'power 
>of man' to conquer nature to the extent that man's ferocity against nature 
>will reduce (p188). Marcuse conflates "poverty, disease and cancerous 
>growth", the "reduction and removal" of which is "liberation of life". An 
>optimistic man!
>The task of 'man' is to overcome the oppose the continued artificial 
>production of "false needs" (his quotes - he's obviously aware of the 
>impossibility of defining such a concept) and change the qualitative 
>nature of life. (p189).
>Again he (implicitly) distances himself from Heidegger - "liberation... 
>does not mean return to healthy and robust poverty, moral cleanliness and 
>simplicity "(p190).
>
>Marcuse lapses into a utopian romanticism and mysticism - the notion of 
>"false needs" seems to be a leftover from Heidegger which is indefinable 
>and unhistorical, as is 'man'. His utopian notions seem based in 
>Heidegger, and I don't think Marcuse tears himself clear from his grasp. 
>His presumptive utopian ideas again testify to his debt to Heidegger, 
>despite his attempts at dissociation and reversal. His language becomes 
>prescriptive and definitive.
>
>Adorno's rejection of phenomenology and foundationalism is the crucial 
>difference between himself and Marcuse, and allows him to avoid the 
>crucial weaknesses in Marcuse's thought.
>
>I've only just re-acquainted myself with "One Dimensional Man" so I 
>apologise for any first-year undergraduate errors in the above.
>
>--
>Simon Smith