We still read Adorno's books in Latin America, at the University.
So what? Enjoy yourselves. In one hand, shut down your computers and make revolution, if you don't agree with his position. In the other hand, you could (I imagine) argue with another theorist, another one that's not dead. And not by the Internet, but face to face.
The jew Adorno was clever enaugh, to write the songs for the Beatles. So he was perfect to combine the consumation of music with his marxistic agenda, which was to destroy christianity and christian values by promoting free sex and drugs.
All well known teachers at the "Frankurter Schule" were marxistic jews (Horkheimer, Benjamin, Marcuse, Fromm . . .). But they worked together with the US-intellegence-services, which are also led by jews.
The day will come, when all crimes will be unveiled!
@Kommentator888 That is the funniest, albeit the most ridiculous, thing I have ever heard! There are some people on here who are a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic!
@stillceaser These Infos come from the former brit. MI-agent John Coleman. I red his book about this in German titled "Die Hierarchie der Verschwörer - Das Komitee der 300" (J.K.Fischer Verlag). But this is only a translation. The original book was in English, but I dont know the title.
But that Adorno and the "Frankfurter Schule" was official marxistic is well known. In Germany this school is also called "Marxburg". It leaded the transeducation of the german people after WW II.
It's difficult to decipher Aesthetic Theory into anything intelligible, but Adorno seems to be saying that anything that's popular sucks. I dislike much of popular music, too, but it's odd that Marxism and elitism are so compatable in Adorno's universe.
@TheCanine2 You should read Henze's autobiography. He can be found strutting around there denouncing everything south of absolute chaos as "Kitsch". For somebody so fixated on consumerism and capitalism it would be interesting to learn whether he was paid to give talks like this, or whether he gave his books away for free? If not then he is just as guilty of commodifying cultural discourse as the people he "critiques". His market share may be of a different demographic, but the end result is?
@egapnala65 Subterfuge is at the heart of Marxism. And despite all the stylish altruism, an unacknowledged pursuit of power over others seems to be in the heart of many Marxists. Not power over others via money and wealth, but power by limiting other peoples' access to power via money and wealth. Of course, until whatever society they live in falls to communism, they'll settle for power via money and wealth (to whatever degree they can acquire it.)
@TheCanine2 Well it is a bourgeois ideology promoted by the wealthy, so what can you expect? Check out Ralph Glasser's "Gorbals Boy At Oxford". He finds him self being ridiculed by some of his well heeled "comrades" for answering the question "Why do people work?" with the answer "because they have to." I have no idea what use "critical theory" actually serves, its proponents seem to be so caught up in their own "cleverness" that they don't realise Hegelianism was a fraud in the first place.
@egapnala65 That's probably because you dont understand critical theory, nor where it came from. Clearly you don't understand Hegel either. Shame. You've got it all arse about face.
@stillceaser The joys of dialectical rationality is that it can flip either way, it is so ambiguous. That's why its so popular with pseudo intellectuals, they can win either way.
And what have I misunderstood about Hegel? Does not the summary of his entire output end up with him declaring himself to be God incarnate and The Prussian State the highest evolved civilization there was?
As for "critical wealthy"? Wealthy academics spouting empty polysyllabic jargon does nothing for coal miners.
@egapnala65 "Critical Theory" I mean. Not that it matters. Adorno was just a well off snob consigning composers far more talented than he could ever be to an aesthetic gas chamber.
His contribution to aesthetics being just as valid and acceptable as Hitler's contribution to race relations. Both sprang from Hegel.
@stillceaser Oh really would you like to discuss this further? I have read the whole of Hegel and I cannot see where I have misjudged him. Please do elaborate. Or stop bullshitting me. One of the the two.
And while your at it please explain what relevance do snooty academics spouting polysyllables have to people working on supermarket checkouts anyway? How do they represent them exactly?
@egapnala65 with 488 characters remaining, it is unfair to try and start a silly game of ping pong with someone who may have read Hegel but does not understand the core tenets, nor the value of dialectical and critical philosophy. You are keenly dismissive, and that makes me suspicious of how deeply you have actually engaged and penetrated these works. Regarding the supermarket checkouts, better they listen to Adorno on culture than they do on any of our politicians. Emancipatory.
@stillceaser Ok, that's a declaration of surrender then. As I have already stated, dialectical oppositions are highly ambiguous and can flip either way. Read Schopenhauer, an Karl Popper.
As for Adorno et al they were professionals, that is, they did it for the money, that is, they are a part of the cash nexus, that is they are hypocrites.
@egapnala65 You have no idea what you are talking about you petty fool. I find the inference that I've made a surrender quite amusing too. Dialectical philosophy is not ambiguous at all, but your biases are starting to rear their ugly heads, especially regarding Schopenhauer. Dogmatism is a real peril when engaging philosophy. Try thinking about the problem, and less your instinctive biases.
@stillceaser Dear oh dear, no argument, just statements. It is profoundly ambiguous which is how a right/left Hegelian split was able to occur and how Gobineau was able to apply the dialectical rational conflict to race and Marx to social classes. In Gobineau it is seen as rational retreat from a utopian state of society, whilst Marx merely applied it wholescale to social structures.
Schopenhauer was the only one to see through the bullshit of his generation which is why the bourgeois hate him.
@stillceaser The unholy trinity can be viewed as follows Hegel= the essential progress of mankind has been determined by a universal world spirit working out its purpose through a dialectical conflict of civilizations leading up to the current Prussian state being the ultimate end of mankind's evolutionary progress. Gobineau= the essential progress of mankind rests in trying to reclaim the lost utopia through dialectically opposing conflicts between races. Marx =the same as Hegel but classbased
@stillceaser Yes the difference between the mind of God and the mind of the perceiving subject. Still does not make up for the fact that Hegel was a self serving charlatan who tried to curry favor with the Prussian state hierarchy by "proving" them the ultimate resting place for the "World Spirit."
As that is the case it must also follow that those who followed his line of thinking must also be self serving charlatans.
@egapnala65 You are one funny dude, but a very bad philosopher. The problem is that you've taken the line Popper and Russell and so on take, mistaking Hegels doppelsatz as an expression of quaint providentialism. His theodicy is on this view, misunderstood. He is not as many young Hegelians and Marxists would have it either, a revolutionary - but a piecemeal reformer. You should note that in 1819 it was a hard job getting round the censors, and looking at his work before and after the Carlsbad
@stillceaser ..decree it is very telling, not to mention Fichte's writings on how paranoid he was at that time that he may actually be understood!! You only have to look at how badly Russell got Nietzsche wrong, to see how bad most analytic philosophers are at really grasping critical and dialectical philosophy, and creating straw men, which is very much what you have done with Hegel.
@stillceaser ...it's like I said, you just dont 'get it' because you haven't dug deep enough. And that facile little aside about how it 'must follow' that those who follow his line are self serving is a travesty of reason, not to mention a pot calling the kettle black.
@stillceaser Well let's take it a step at a time then shall we. The end of the Aesthetics, Philosophy is seen as the highest aspiration mankind can strive for. At the end of the Philosophy of History it is the Germanic race that is "proven" to be the highest evolutionary expression of cultural endeavour and to complete the trilogy the Philosophy of Right puts the State as the supreme political system.
In other words the divine end of mankind is a German philosopher working for a state system.
@stillceaser Far from being hidden Hegel's "theodicy" is pretty transparent. I repeat, those who build their sandcastles on this obviously fraudulent base can only be equally fraudulent.
@egapnala65 Look, the scholarship you refer to on Hegel is by consensus, a very old and misleading. Even dear old Schopenhauer got it wrong. I've tried to explain it, there is a crucial distinction to be made between actuality and empty existence, and failure to do so gives a very conservative, and not to mention inaccurate reading of Hegel. You can bang on all you like, but you have misread Hegel and failed to realise that he probably in some way supports your (rather fervert) view.
@stillceaser So are you saying his volumes do not come to these conclusions then?
Typical dialectician, whatever angle you approach it from, its wrong. Endless ambiguity and obscurity is the key. Nice defence mechanism but of no real use otherwise.
@egapnala65 You really are obtuse aren't you. That is precisely what I am saying. There is no 'defence mechanism', and I am not a 'dialectician' either. You are far too keen to throw things into boxes, as though this was some sort of gladitorial confrontation. You need to read Hegel more carefully, and you would benefit from some secondary literature too. Otherwise you are just spilling out ill conceived and pernicious utterances that really get nowhere near to grasping the ideas.
@stillceaser So do the said volumes come to these conclusions or do they not? The only pernicious ideas I can see from here is Theodor Adorno coming to the same conclusions about Jazz as Hitler did. They are the precise mirror images of each other.
@egapnala65 I'm afraid to say it but you would know 'dialectical rationality' if it jumped up an bit you on the ass. I have said the conclusions YOU think Hegel make are false. Patently. You understand nothing of Hegel. Nothing. You are an unreasonable and cantankerous fart with a stick up his ass about Hegel, Adorno et al, and your dogmatic prejudices are crass and ill considered. Now do me a favour and piss off.
@stillceaser So not only do you deny the simple facts of how Hegel's philosophy actually terminates, you now deny that Adorno came to the same opinions as Hitler on Jazz. I think it is you who needs to do some serious study, not me.
@stillceaser But I have no need of "scholarship", the facts of the matter are that Hegel's philosophy concludes with him declaring himself to be God and the Prussian state the most advanced point humanity has ever reached.
It's clear as daylight to objective eyes. But I guess those with agendas to push, its not clear cut.
@egapnala65 So who are you to claim the 'facts'? You are not objective at all, you are quite clearly deluded - I've seen your videos. It is YOU that is trying to push an agenda, and you that has his head stuck up his own arse. Stop trying to do philosophy, you really have no talent for it, nor any understanding. That you say you have no need of scholarship speaks volumes - you have no wish to be exhaustive. You simply want it all to fit your twisted and narrow little view. You are thick.
@stillceaser Ah yes, the totalitarianism that is inherent in all Hegelians comes to the fore at last. Who do I HAVE to be to claim anything? I merely state the blindingly obvious facts that anybody with a clear head can see for themselves.
Simply because I do not share your unmitigated and, frankly ludicrous deification of an overated charlatan hardly makes me "thick".
People need a feelgood factor, they need to feel that everything is part of an evolutionary progress towards utopia. I don't.
@stillceaser Now go back to your Marcuses, your Althussers and all those other posturing freaks who covered up paucity of thought with pretentious language.
@stillceaser And who raged against capitalism whilst making shedloads out of publications and lectures any real anti-capitalist would have given for free.
@egapnala65 You do make me laugh, you have presumed that I deify Hegel, and that I somehow subscribe to a telos of utopia. You cant see the wood for the trees. This started because you made a very false, and very erroneous utterance about Hegel and dialectic philosophy, I put you straight, you wouldn't have any of it, got bent out of shape, and tried to rant your way through it. I never gave you any indication, nor instance of my own leanings. You are a presumptuous and mad twit.
@stillceaser "This started because you made a false and erroneous utterance about Hegel"- mmm, by what measure? Somebody has clearly never read Kant. My view of Hegel is as much a product of my mind as your view of Hegel is the product of yours. You cannot claim anything to be erroneous as you cannot prove there is an objective entity (which you designate "Hegel") apart from your own perceptions.
@egapnala65 Are you still here? You are riding way off topic now sunshine. You had never stopped to ask yourself, what was Hegels project? Trust me, the vast majority of Hegel scholars would tell you pretty much what I am telling you, that your reading of Hegel is very misguided and not at all rigorous. If you are trying to obfuscate the issue with some third rate shit about solipsism, then you've proved yourself to be a right donut. You cant do Philosophy - stop trying.
@stillceaser And naturally I have read Kant. And you are misappropriating him too. Please, it really isn't possible to say everything that needs to be said on a YouTube thread. It is my guess that you've either been taught German Idealism badly, or just a bit too flippant in your consideration of these matters. In short, you've got some bad habits. To that end, I cant see any fruitful discussion coming out of this. If you want to address problems, fine. If not, go back to toga videos.
@stillceaser Just been reading up about a composer called Robert Still. He fell foul of the Adornoite regime at the BBC when it was run by William Glock and Hans Keller. They declared whole swathes of music to be "unsuited for broadcast" and promoted the Darmstadt school in its place.
Major composers like Martinu, Copland, Matyas Seiber, Panufnik, Honneger, Bloch, Milhaud etc were aesthetically cleansed from broadcast mediums and concert platforms. Hegel's legacy speaks for itself.
@egapnala65 Ok whatever you say. You seem to be the authority on all thing Kant and Hegel, and Adorno for that matter. Suddenly it is so clear to me, why did I waste all those years at University when I could have got the real deal right here, from a real scholar of German Idealism and Critical Theory. And for free! I am truly grateful. You've taught me that there is only one reading - your reading!
@stillceaser Indeed, why bother? Schopenhauer's essay on "Philosophy at the Universities" would have enlightened you, had you actually read it. But it does seem to be the case that, as Bryan Magee observed in his autobiography, it is perfectly possible to do well in academic philosophy exams without having read a single text.
Thanks for proving him right. Now back to your textual analysis.
@egapnala65 Ha! Ha! You've got me sooooo wrong! And Adorno too. Have you read Adorno's stuff on Universities?
You have a hubris so dense, it is impervious to any kind of reason at all. The difference between you and I is very simple. You hold a highly dogmatic and idolatrous view on Philosophy - You are an arch Schopenhauerian. I, on the other hand, love all of these thinkers and are driven more by the questions that arise, rather than cynically slinging in my lot with just one.
@egapnala65 Ad Hominem? I only called you a fruit cake. Your character is as bad as your philosophy. You are deeply unpleasant, antagonistic for the sake of it, obtuse, rude and you know absolutely fuck all about philosophy, less fuck all about me. Quite honestly, if I met you in the street I would throw you into the nearest dumpster. It gets my goat when people who know the least, decide to shout the loudest. Your like a kid who's just read his first book on philosophy and figures he 'got it'.
@stillceaser More ad hominen. It is amazing how Hegel brings this stuff out in people isn't it? The only thing that should rightly be thrown in the dumpster is the revolting "ubermenschen" philosophy of Hegelianism.
Of course it would have to take the majority of 20th century philosophy with it as well as much of it is concerned with blind unthinking acceptance of this charlatan's nonsense. But it's no great loss.
@egapnala65 Hegel doesn't bring this stuff out. Your bullshit does. Stick to music, and leave philosophy alone. Better yet, find yourself that dumpster...
@stillceaser Oh but it does. Its based on endless conflict, warfare and alpha male behaviour. As you quite adequately prove. And I will say whatever I want you pathetic litt;e fascist. Its called democracy, An alien concept to Hegelianism I know but still.
@stillceaser And I approach this from the point of view as a musician and the effects on musical democracy this pseudo intellectual piece of filth has had is utterly unforgivable.
@stillceaser Adorno's stuff on universities? Was this when he opposed a load of student protestors in the US in the late 60s? Yes very enlightening. Typical bourgeois radical.
@stillceaser But of course it is another well known fallacy of Hegel that conjoins the subject with the object. Making it impossible to distinguish an actual sighting of a real horse from a dream about a horse. Whatever the mind perceives is articulated as real.
@egapnala65 Where have you been the last 200+ years? Start with Fichte and Schlegel on this matter, then come back to me and we'll talk about your so called 'fallacy' regarding Hegel. You really have to stop this Philosophy 101 shit though.
@stillceaser I go from Kant to Schopenhauer, as these minor figures you mention were also charlatans. Have read both and find them unconvincing. As indeed did Schopenhauer.
Interesting though Schlegel's "Philosophy of History" was.
@egapnala65 Ha! The arrogance! 'Minor Figures'. I can tell what kind of an education you've had. Ok, Mr.Philosophy, so what is the Schlegelian criticism of Fichte? And how does this relate to Kant?
If you've read Schopenhauer, you must then be familiar with the Nietzschean critique?
@stillceaser In other words, warfare, warfare, warfare. Not led by the troops on the ground, ie. supermarket workers themselves, but by wealthy bourgeois posers like yourself and Adorno who can't wait to bang them all up in Gulags and give them nothing but Nono to listen to.
@egapnala65 So how exactly do you know whether am I bourgeois or not? On that score you are very wrong. What is the point in engaging you when it is evidently clear that you are man with his mind more than made up? Discourse does not interest you. You have some very incomplete ideas on Adorno, Hegel, Marx and indeed Schopenhauer. I'll give you an argument if you present me with something a little better reasoned and insightful, instead of this vitriolic nastiness you keep spouting.
@stillceaser Personally I find Schopenhauer's "history as stasis" far more convincing and relevant.You don't tend to end up with authoritarian freaks with his outlook. No gulags and no concentration camps.
@TheCanine2 And if you think about it, the kind of world he advocates where all forms of aesthetic stimulation bar the absolute chaotic are banned and replaced by 24 hour Nono and Stockhausen the links to Communism can be easily traced. He has merely extended the criminalisation of religion to the state criminalisation of cultural expression. The opposite direction to Stalin, certainly, but essentially the same process.
I don't think the music plays any role what so ever, because it is a product of a the movement; it is a market action to supply the movement so that the market can get money out of it, but the influence on the movement is, however, minor. The elitist music Adorno made was not going to solve any problems any time soon as well, because they represented what he thought and that is not necessarily what the majority thought.
Hmmm...the more I think about this, I start wondering if Yoko Ono's unbearable music was a reply to Adorno's critique. Only problem is, I don't think she sang about the Vietnam war...
Ere this I should have fatted all the region kites with this slave's offal: bloody, bawdy villain! Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindless villain! O, vengeance!
@AlemanJuan Basically the same as what he said about the 1960s Students Movement in general: They're onto something, but they're not in the position to do anything about what they realize is wrong with the world because of their absolute lack of support from society at large.
@tlatosmd I think he is saying that the protesters have the right goals in mind, but use the wrong means to accomplish that, and in the process end up being swallowed by the system they so vocally tried to oppose.
@nomoteticus The problem is that even protest music contains within the seeds of domination and uniformisation (the 4/4 beat, the focus on the chorus, etc), so even when they're singing about rebellion, the music subversively invites them to conform.
We still read Adorno's books in Latin America, at the University.
So what? Enjoy yourselves. In one hand, shut down your computers and make revolution, if you don't agree with his position. In the other hand, you could (I imagine) argue with another theorist, another one that's not dead. And not by the Internet, but face to face.
desfondo 1 week ago
So much for the actual subject and Adorno's remarks. And poor dead Hegel, whom jerkees confuse with a slapstick version of Nietzsche.
whizbang47 2 weeks ago
So tell me now, redundant clown,
With all your motley running down.
Whatever could you say to me
Who came to Schoenberg
Through Ketelbey?
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65
All nature is but art, unknown to thee;
All chance, direction which thou canst not see;
All discord, harmony not understood;
All partial evil, universal good;
And, spite of pride, in erring reason’s spite,
One truth is clear,
Whatever is, is right.
That pretty much sums up your reading of Hegel.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser Only according to your own individual perception of it.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@Kommentator888 you sound like funnnnnnn
pestoman 3 months ago 2
The jew Adorno was clever enaugh, to write the songs for the Beatles. So he was perfect to combine the consumation of music with his marxistic agenda, which was to destroy christianity and christian values by promoting free sex and drugs.
All well known teachers at the "Frankurter Schule" were marxistic jews (Horkheimer, Benjamin, Marcuse, Fromm . . .). But they worked together with the US-intellegence-services, which are also led by jews.
The day will come, when all crimes will be unveiled!
Kommentator888 3 months ago
@Kommentator888 you sick sick person =)))
ostrowskij 3 months ago 3
@Kommentator888 go fuck yourself
mrclndr 1 month ago
@Kommentator888 That is the funniest, albeit the most ridiculous, thing I have ever heard! There are some people on here who are a couple of sandwiches short of a picnic!
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser These Infos come from the former brit. MI-agent John Coleman. I red his book about this in German titled "Die Hierarchie der Verschwörer - Das Komitee der 300" (J.K.Fischer Verlag). But this is only a translation. The original book was in English, but I dont know the title.
But that Adorno and the "Frankfurter Schule" was official marxistic is well known. In Germany this school is also called "Marxburg". It leaded the transeducation of the german people after WW II.
Kommentator888 1 month ago
@Kommentator888 Which infos are you referring to chap? The stuff that egapnala65 is talking about?
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser I didn't refer to egapnala65.
Kommentator888 1 month ago
@stillceaser Who or what are you referring to then?
stillceaser 1 month ago
@Kommentator888 I've never read anything by John Coleman
stillceaser 1 month ago
Comment removed
gagnergagner 4 months ago
It's difficult to decipher Aesthetic Theory into anything intelligible, but Adorno seems to be saying that anything that's popular sucks. I dislike much of popular music, too, but it's odd that Marxism and elitism are so compatable in Adorno's universe.
TheCanine2 4 months ago
@TheCanine2 You should read Henze's autobiography. He can be found strutting around there denouncing everything south of absolute chaos as "Kitsch". For somebody so fixated on consumerism and capitalism it would be interesting to learn whether he was paid to give talks like this, or whether he gave his books away for free? If not then he is just as guilty of commodifying cultural discourse as the people he "critiques". His market share may be of a different demographic, but the end result is?
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 Subterfuge is at the heart of Marxism. And despite all the stylish altruism, an unacknowledged pursuit of power over others seems to be in the heart of many Marxists. Not power over others via money and wealth, but power by limiting other peoples' access to power via money and wealth. Of course, until whatever society they live in falls to communism, they'll settle for power via money and wealth (to whatever degree they can acquire it.)
TheCanine2 4 months ago
@TheCanine2 Well it is a bourgeois ideology promoted by the wealthy, so what can you expect? Check out Ralph Glasser's "Gorbals Boy At Oxford". He finds him self being ridiculed by some of his well heeled "comrades" for answering the question "Why do people work?" with the answer "because they have to." I have no idea what use "critical theory" actually serves, its proponents seem to be so caught up in their own "cleverness" that they don't realise Hegelianism was a fraud in the first place.
egapnala65 4 months ago
@egapnala65 That's probably because you dont understand critical theory, nor where it came from. Clearly you don't understand Hegel either. Shame. You've got it all arse about face.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser The joys of dialectical rationality is that it can flip either way, it is so ambiguous. That's why its so popular with pseudo intellectuals, they can win either way.
And what have I misunderstood about Hegel? Does not the summary of his entire output end up with him declaring himself to be God incarnate and The Prussian State the highest evolved civilization there was?
As for "critical wealthy"? Wealthy academics spouting empty polysyllabic jargon does nothing for coal miners.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65 "Critical Theory" I mean. Not that it matters. Adorno was just a well off snob consigning composers far more talented than he could ever be to an aesthetic gas chamber.
His contribution to aesthetics being just as valid and acceptable as Hitler's contribution to race relations. Both sprang from Hegel.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65 Like I said, you really didn't get it at all. Read more, and talk less shit.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser Oh really would you like to discuss this further? I have read the whole of Hegel and I cannot see where I have misjudged him. Please do elaborate. Or stop bullshitting me. One of the the two.
And while your at it please explain what relevance do snooty academics spouting polysyllables have to people working on supermarket checkouts anyway? How do they represent them exactly?
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65 with 488 characters remaining, it is unfair to try and start a silly game of ping pong with someone who may have read Hegel but does not understand the core tenets, nor the value of dialectical and critical philosophy. You are keenly dismissive, and that makes me suspicious of how deeply you have actually engaged and penetrated these works. Regarding the supermarket checkouts, better they listen to Adorno on culture than they do on any of our politicians. Emancipatory.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser Ok, that's a declaration of surrender then. As I have already stated, dialectical oppositions are highly ambiguous and can flip either way. Read Schopenhauer, an Karl Popper.
As for Adorno et al they were professionals, that is, they did it for the money, that is, they are a part of the cash nexus, that is they are hypocrites.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65 You have no idea what you are talking about you petty fool. I find the inference that I've made a surrender quite amusing too. Dialectical philosophy is not ambiguous at all, but your biases are starting to rear their ugly heads, especially regarding Schopenhauer. Dogmatism is a real peril when engaging philosophy. Try thinking about the problem, and less your instinctive biases.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser Dear oh dear, no argument, just statements. It is profoundly ambiguous which is how a right/left Hegelian split was able to occur and how Gobineau was able to apply the dialectical rational conflict to race and Marx to social classes. In Gobineau it is seen as rational retreat from a utopian state of society, whilst Marx merely applied it wholescale to social structures.
Schopenhauer was the only one to see through the bullshit of his generation which is why the bourgeois hate him.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@stillceaser The unholy trinity can be viewed as follows Hegel= the essential progress of mankind has been determined by a universal world spirit working out its purpose through a dialectical conflict of civilizations leading up to the current Prussian state being the ultimate end of mankind's evolutionary progress. Gobineau= the essential progress of mankind rests in trying to reclaim the lost utopia through dialectically opposing conflicts between races. Marx =the same as Hegel but classbased
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65 That's not quite right at all. Marx rejects the Hegelian metaphysical notion of spirit in favour of a dialectical materialism.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser He simply applies it to materialism, no difference.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@stillceaser He still clings to the myth that history is a rational process determined by endless conflict.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65 Yes, but dont try to transpose your notion of 'rational' onto Hegels. You'll find they differ.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser Yes the difference between the mind of God and the mind of the perceiving subject. Still does not make up for the fact that Hegel was a self serving charlatan who tried to curry favor with the Prussian state hierarchy by "proving" them the ultimate resting place for the "World Spirit."
As that is the case it must also follow that those who followed his line of thinking must also be self serving charlatans.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65 You are one funny dude, but a very bad philosopher. The problem is that you've taken the line Popper and Russell and so on take, mistaking Hegels doppelsatz as an expression of quaint providentialism. His theodicy is on this view, misunderstood. He is not as many young Hegelians and Marxists would have it either, a revolutionary - but a piecemeal reformer. You should note that in 1819 it was a hard job getting round the censors, and looking at his work before and after the Carlsbad
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser ..decree it is very telling, not to mention Fichte's writings on how paranoid he was at that time that he may actually be understood!! You only have to look at how badly Russell got Nietzsche wrong, to see how bad most analytic philosophers are at really grasping critical and dialectical philosophy, and creating straw men, which is very much what you have done with Hegel.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser ...it's like I said, you just dont 'get it' because you haven't dug deep enough. And that facile little aside about how it 'must follow' that those who follow his line are self serving is a travesty of reason, not to mention a pot calling the kettle black.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser Well let's take it a step at a time then shall we. The end of the Aesthetics, Philosophy is seen as the highest aspiration mankind can strive for. At the end of the Philosophy of History it is the Germanic race that is "proven" to be the highest evolutionary expression of cultural endeavour and to complete the trilogy the Philosophy of Right puts the State as the supreme political system.
In other words the divine end of mankind is a German philosopher working for a state system.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@stillceaser Far from being hidden Hegel's "theodicy" is pretty transparent. I repeat, those who build their sandcastles on this obviously fraudulent base can only be equally fraudulent.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65 Look, the scholarship you refer to on Hegel is by consensus, a very old and misleading. Even dear old Schopenhauer got it wrong. I've tried to explain it, there is a crucial distinction to be made between actuality and empty existence, and failure to do so gives a very conservative, and not to mention inaccurate reading of Hegel. You can bang on all you like, but you have misread Hegel and failed to realise that he probably in some way supports your (rather fervert) view.
stillceaser 1 month ago
Comment removed
egapnala65 1 month ago
@stillceaser So are you saying his volumes do not come to these conclusions then?
Typical dialectician, whatever angle you approach it from, its wrong. Endless ambiguity and obscurity is the key. Nice defence mechanism but of no real use otherwise.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65 You really are obtuse aren't you. That is precisely what I am saying. There is no 'defence mechanism', and I am not a 'dialectician' either. You are far too keen to throw things into boxes, as though this was some sort of gladitorial confrontation. You need to read Hegel more carefully, and you would benefit from some secondary literature too. Otherwise you are just spilling out ill conceived and pernicious utterances that really get nowhere near to grasping the ideas.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser So do the said volumes come to these conclusions or do they not? The only pernicious ideas I can see from here is Theodor Adorno coming to the same conclusions about Jazz as Hitler did. They are the precise mirror images of each other.
Thanks to dialectical rationailty.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65 I'm afraid to say it but you would know 'dialectical rationality' if it jumped up an bit you on the ass. I have said the conclusions YOU think Hegel make are false. Patently. You understand nothing of Hegel. Nothing. You are an unreasonable and cantankerous fart with a stick up his ass about Hegel, Adorno et al, and your dogmatic prejudices are crass and ill considered. Now do me a favour and piss off.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser So not only do you deny the simple facts of how Hegel's philosophy actually terminates, you now deny that Adorno came to the same opinions as Hitler on Jazz. I think it is you who needs to do some serious study, not me.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@stillceaser But I have no need of "scholarship", the facts of the matter are that Hegel's philosophy concludes with him declaring himself to be God and the Prussian state the most advanced point humanity has ever reached.
It's clear as daylight to objective eyes. But I guess those with agendas to push, its not clear cut.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65 So who are you to claim the 'facts'? You are not objective at all, you are quite clearly deluded - I've seen your videos. It is YOU that is trying to push an agenda, and you that has his head stuck up his own arse. Stop trying to do philosophy, you really have no talent for it, nor any understanding. That you say you have no need of scholarship speaks volumes - you have no wish to be exhaustive. You simply want it all to fit your twisted and narrow little view. You are thick.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser Ah yes, the totalitarianism that is inherent in all Hegelians comes to the fore at last. Who do I HAVE to be to claim anything? I merely state the blindingly obvious facts that anybody with a clear head can see for themselves.
Simply because I do not share your unmitigated and, frankly ludicrous deification of an overated charlatan hardly makes me "thick".
People need a feelgood factor, they need to feel that everything is part of an evolutionary progress towards utopia. I don't.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@stillceaser Now go back to your Marcuses, your Althussers and all those other posturing freaks who covered up paucity of thought with pretentious language.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@stillceaser And who raged against capitalism whilst making shedloads out of publications and lectures any real anti-capitalist would have given for free.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65 You do make me laugh, you have presumed that I deify Hegel, and that I somehow subscribe to a telos of utopia. You cant see the wood for the trees. This started because you made a very false, and very erroneous utterance about Hegel and dialectic philosophy, I put you straight, you wouldn't have any of it, got bent out of shape, and tried to rant your way through it. I never gave you any indication, nor instance of my own leanings. You are a presumptuous and mad twit.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser ...and you know precious little.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser "This started because you made a false and erroneous utterance about Hegel"- mmm, by what measure? Somebody has clearly never read Kant. My view of Hegel is as much a product of my mind as your view of Hegel is the product of yours. You cannot claim anything to be erroneous as you cannot prove there is an objective entity (which you designate "Hegel") apart from your own perceptions.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65 Are you still here? You are riding way off topic now sunshine. You had never stopped to ask yourself, what was Hegels project? Trust me, the vast majority of Hegel scholars would tell you pretty much what I am telling you, that your reading of Hegel is very misguided and not at all rigorous. If you are trying to obfuscate the issue with some third rate shit about solipsism, then you've proved yourself to be a right donut. You cant do Philosophy - stop trying.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser And naturally I have read Kant. And you are misappropriating him too. Please, it really isn't possible to say everything that needs to be said on a YouTube thread. It is my guess that you've either been taught German Idealism badly, or just a bit too flippant in your consideration of these matters. In short, you've got some bad habits. To that end, I cant see any fruitful discussion coming out of this. If you want to address problems, fine. If not, go back to toga videos.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser Just been reading up about a composer called Robert Still. He fell foul of the Adornoite regime at the BBC when it was run by William Glock and Hans Keller. They declared whole swathes of music to be "unsuited for broadcast" and promoted the Darmstadt school in its place.
Major composers like Martinu, Copland, Matyas Seiber, Panufnik, Honneger, Bloch, Milhaud etc were aesthetically cleansed from broadcast mediums and concert platforms. Hegel's legacy speaks for itself.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@stillceaser "Third rate shit about solipsism"- a further indication that you have never read Kant. Keep going, you are very amusing.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65 Ok whatever you say. You seem to be the authority on all thing Kant and Hegel, and Adorno for that matter. Suddenly it is so clear to me, why did I waste all those years at University when I could have got the real deal right here, from a real scholar of German Idealism and Critical Theory. And for free! I am truly grateful. You've taught me that there is only one reading - your reading!
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser Indeed, why bother? Schopenhauer's essay on "Philosophy at the Universities" would have enlightened you, had you actually read it. But it does seem to be the case that, as Bryan Magee observed in his autobiography, it is perfectly possible to do well in academic philosophy exams without having read a single text.
Thanks for proving him right. Now back to your textual analysis.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65 Ha! Ha! You've got me sooooo wrong! And Adorno too. Have you read Adorno's stuff on Universities?
You have a hubris so dense, it is impervious to any kind of reason at all. The difference between you and I is very simple. You hold a highly dogmatic and idolatrous view on Philosophy - You are an arch Schopenhauerian. I, on the other hand, love all of these thinkers and are driven more by the questions that arise, rather than cynically slinging in my lot with just one.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser Ad Hominen. Not sound argument. Now back to splitting infinitives like the good textual analyst you probably are.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65 Ad Hominem? I only called you a fruit cake. Your character is as bad as your philosophy. You are deeply unpleasant, antagonistic for the sake of it, obtuse, rude and you know absolutely fuck all about philosophy, less fuck all about me. Quite honestly, if I met you in the street I would throw you into the nearest dumpster. It gets my goat when people who know the least, decide to shout the loudest. Your like a kid who's just read his first book on philosophy and figures he 'got it'.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser We're done.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser More ad hominen. It is amazing how Hegel brings this stuff out in people isn't it? The only thing that should rightly be thrown in the dumpster is the revolting "ubermenschen" philosophy of Hegelianism.
Of course it would have to take the majority of 20th century philosophy with it as well as much of it is concerned with blind unthinking acceptance of this charlatan's nonsense. But it's no great loss.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65 Hegel doesn't bring this stuff out. Your bullshit does. Stick to music, and leave philosophy alone. Better yet, find yourself that dumpster...
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser Oh but it does. Its based on endless conflict, warfare and alpha male behaviour. As you quite adequately prove. And I will say whatever I want you pathetic litt;e fascist. Its called democracy, An alien concept to Hegelianism I know but still.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@stillceaser And I approach this from the point of view as a musician and the effects on musical democracy this pseudo intellectual piece of filth has had is utterly unforgivable.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@stillceaser Adorno's stuff on universities? Was this when he opposed a load of student protestors in the US in the late 60s? Yes very enlightening. Typical bourgeois radical.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@stillceaser But of course it is another well known fallacy of Hegel that conjoins the subject with the object. Making it impossible to distinguish an actual sighting of a real horse from a dream about a horse. Whatever the mind perceives is articulated as real.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65 Where have you been the last 200+ years? Start with Fichte and Schlegel on this matter, then come back to me and we'll talk about your so called 'fallacy' regarding Hegel. You really have to stop this Philosophy 101 shit though.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser I go from Kant to Schopenhauer, as these minor figures you mention were also charlatans. Have read both and find them unconvincing. As indeed did Schopenhauer.
Interesting though Schlegel's "Philosophy of History" was.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65 Ha! The arrogance! 'Minor Figures'. I can tell what kind of an education you've had. Ok, Mr.Philosophy, so what is the Schlegelian criticism of Fichte? And how does this relate to Kant?
If you've read Schopenhauer, you must then be familiar with the Nietzschean critique?
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser Yawn who cares, he was a radical romantic, hardly trustworthy.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65 Oh dear. You really are a prize fruitcake. I'm done with this now. There is only so much ignorance I can take for one day.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser Go and read the 1st Critique of Kant and then come back to me.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65 and?
stillceaser 1 month ago
@egapnala65 Now you're just being hilarious.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser And as Schopenhauer points out wasting the brain on this heap of self serving nonsense may be fashionable but hardly advisable.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@stillceaser In other words, warfare, warfare, warfare. Not led by the troops on the ground, ie. supermarket workers themselves, but by wealthy bourgeois posers like yourself and Adorno who can't wait to bang them all up in Gulags and give them nothing but Nono to listen to.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@egapnala65 So how exactly do you know whether am I bourgeois or not? On that score you are very wrong. What is the point in engaging you when it is evidently clear that you are man with his mind more than made up? Discourse does not interest you. You have some very incomplete ideas on Adorno, Hegel, Marx and indeed Schopenhauer. I'll give you an argument if you present me with something a little better reasoned and insightful, instead of this vitriolic nastiness you keep spouting.
stillceaser 1 month ago
@stillceaser Yes yes, of course you will. Yaaaawwwwn. Typical poser.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@stillceaser Personally I find Schopenhauer's "history as stasis" far more convincing and relevant.You don't tend to end up with authoritarian freaks with his outlook. No gulags and no concentration camps.
egapnala65 1 month ago
@TheCanine2 Not really sure you've understood Marxism too well there. That is a very crude and misleading reduction to make
stillceaser 1 month ago
@TheCanine2 And if you think about it, the kind of world he advocates where all forms of aesthetic stimulation bar the absolute chaotic are banned and replaced by 24 hour Nono and Stockhausen the links to Communism can be easily traced. He has merely extended the criminalisation of religion to the state criminalisation of cultural expression. The opposite direction to Stalin, certainly, but essentially the same process.
egapnala65 4 months ago
I don't think the music plays any role what so ever, because it is a product of a the movement; it is a market action to supply the movement so that the market can get money out of it, but the influence on the movement is, however, minor. The elitist music Adorno made was not going to solve any problems any time soon as well, because they represented what he thought and that is not necessarily what the majority thought.
Bramboterhamm 5 months ago
Hmmm...the more I think about this, I start wondering if Yoko Ono's unbearable music was a reply to Adorno's critique. Only problem is, I don't think she sang about the Vietnam war...
tlatosmd 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ere this I should have fatted all the region kites with this slave's offal: bloody, bawdy villain! Remorseless, treacherous, lecherous, kindless villain! O, vengeance!
FireEyedMaidOfWar 7 months ago
christ. What a dope. What's the word? Johannesburg!
MrSunsetParker 7 months ago
what do you think adorno would have said about a band like ton steine scherben?
AlemanJuan 11 months ago
@AlemanJuan
"Wheel it up, my selecta"
QwertyBstard 9 months ago
@QwertyBstard hahah :P
AlemanJuan 9 months ago
@AlemanJuan Basically the same as what he said about the 1960s Students Movement in general: They're onto something, but they're not in the position to do anything about what they realize is wrong with the world because of their absolute lack of support from society at large.
tlatosmd 9 months ago
@tlatosmd I think he is saying that the protesters have the right goals in mind, but use the wrong means to accomplish that, and in the process end up being swallowed by the system they so vocally tried to oppose.
nomoteticus 6 months ago
@nomoteticus The problem is that even protest music contains within the seeds of domination and uniformisation (the 4/4 beat, the focus on the chorus, etc), so even when they're singing about rebellion, the music subversively invites them to conform.
nomoteticus 6 months ago 2
uhm... right!!!
27dedrummer 1 year ago