 | The ‘dark’ writer of the bourgeoisie, such as Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Mandeville, always had an appeal for Max Horkheimer, who was influenced by Schopenhauer early in his career. These writers still thought in a constructive way; and there were lines leading from their disharmonies to Marx’s social theory. The ‘black’ writer of the bourgeoisie, foremost among them the Marquis de Sade and Nietzsche, broke these ties. In their blackest book, Dialectic of Enlightenment, Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno joined with these writers to conceptualize the Enlightenment’s process of self-destruction. On their analysis, it is no longer possible to place hope in the liberating force of enlightenment. Inspired by Benjamin’s now ironic hope of the hopeless, they still did not want to relinquish the now paradoxical labor of conceptualization. We no longer share this mood, this attitude. And yet under the sign of a Nietzsche revitalized by poststructuralism, moods and attitudes are spreading that are confusingly like those of Horkheimer and Adorno. I would like to forestall this confusion. |
✖ Via The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity by Jürgen Habermas, MIT Press, 1996, p. 106 Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Mandeville are “dark” writers (why?). Marquis de Sade and Nietzsche? Even darker : they are the “black” writers of the bourgeoisie. And Habermas? Habermas must be white. |
• Jul 07, 2010 link notes tagged:
communication
modernity
philosophy
Habermas
Hobbes
critic
critical theory
poststructuralism
Nietzsche
Sade
Machiavelli
Mandeville
Adorno
Horkheimer
hope
confusion
Enlightenment
 | So the community does you no damn good! |
✖ Via The New York Times: “The Anosognosic’s Dilemma: Something’s Wrong but You’ll Never Know What It Is (Part 5)” by Errol Morris, June 24th, 2010 Who ever said that community was supposed to do good things for you? Really? I’m aware that most of us think that way, but where is this idea coming from? And what about another idea : community is a problem, not a solution. Consider this: (…) what is meant by this word body politic, and how it signifieth not the concord, but the union of many men. We are together, yes, but not necessarily because we love or agree with each other. This quote is taken from the book Elements of Law by Thomas Hobbes, chap. 8, §7, 1650. |
• Jun 29, 2010 link notes tagged:
Esposito
beliefs
communication
communitas
community
humanism
unity
body
politic
concord
love
together
Hobbes
Leviathan