[FRA:] Re: Marcuse and...

[j laari]

Greetings

There is nothing mystical with Marcuse. Marcuse begins his discussion
(in =A75) with (left-) Hegelian credo. It doesn't make him a
Heideggerian if he utilises some Heildegger's term. (Despite of
opposite claims, Heildegger actually didn't offered much original
concepts but utilised theories of preceding generations. Of course.)
Basically, Marcuse defines his position in first paragraph. That is
clearly non-Heideggerian one.

To put it bluntly: Marcuse defines 'technology' by way of logic - not
as 'formal logic' but as way of thinking that grasps reality as
reasonable, i.e. as transcendental logic rather than formal logic. The
idea of reason has entered a totalitarian phase of 'technological
reason'; according to that reason, the external world is subjected to
the supremacy of reason that has as its main function the norm of
being operational to that which commands it, the dominating rules of
the operations of capitalism.

In its very essence, the technological reason is not about producing
devices, or somesuch (though it may manifest itself in products), but
about being functional to its "masters" - instead of being the agency
that evaluates and critizises (cf. references on Aristotle and
Husserl). I'm afraid that the close association of the terms and
concepts 'technology' and 'science' (in anglophone world) makes it
difficult to grasp what someone coming from Hegelian tradition is
saying.

Next, utopia: on what ground one is about "to change the world" or "to
make a revolution" if one is totally immersed in facticity (or in
one's performances ordered by the "masters")?

The utopian moment or dimension in and of thought is necessary. The
workings of our thinking are not like computer-like. Instead of
cursing the achievements of romanticism (provided that the
clarification of utopian impulse is of romantic origin) it would be
more fruitful to isolate the idea of utopia (and other rational ideas)
from the rest of romantic ideology.

Sincerely, Jukka L