Take a photo of a barcode or cover
tylerrobinson1 's review for:
Herbert Marcuse
by Alasdair MacIntyre
Alasdair MaCintyre's book is a systematic critique and engagement with Herbert Marcuse's sociology and philosophy. This was written when MaCintyre was engaging with Marxism, presumably swept up in the New Left spirit in Britain, something MaCintyre's colleagues still grieve and mourn over, although MaCintyre swiftly moved towards an Aristotelian(ish) position.
MaCintyre centres his critique of four lines of attack:
1- Marcuse's notion of truth
2- Marcuse's history of culture
3- Marcuse's correlation of politics and various philosophies
4-Marcuse's relationship to 'classical' Marxism.
Issue 1 is dealt with pretty poorly. He just bemoans the fact that Marcuse distances himself from the analytic, and rather authoritarian obsession with truth. For MaCintyre, truth is either the positivist facts he has decided are truth, or else you're simply talking hogwash. Whilst it's correct that Marcuse doesn't address this as well as he could, at least based on my limited reading of him, it doesn't mean that his notion of truth is garbage, it simply isn't his focus. Instead of trashing him, MaCintyre should've looked elsewhere. The critique is similar to me criticising Wittgenstein for refusing to address feminism, and therefore labelling the 'Tractatus' sexist. Marcuse's critique doesn't embrace a postmodern ideal of truth, it critiques the positivist ahistorical notion of truth, something plenty of philosophers have done.
Marcuse's history of culture and philosophy is critiqued for being selective. Marcuse, following a slightly revised Marxist history of culture, interprets philosophies in generalities, for example the 20th century rise of Phenomonelogy shows a society sliding into fascism. MaCintyre takes aim at this kind of historicising, as it tends to overgeneralise and often ignores the opposing tendencies as well as the political commitments of said philosophers.
Linked with Marcuse's history of philosophy is his idea of philosophy and commitment. Marcuse's critique of 'contemporary philosophy' is against the rising analytic school of Russell, Frege, Austin etc. By obsessing over ahistorical facts and logic, it ignores the historicity of knowledge and the social conditions surrounding it. However, MaCintyre questions how this analytic philosophy is pro-status quo, for MaCintyre analytic philosophy simply provides universal and clear categories for thought, to prevent it being a meaningless Saussurian ribbon of sound. Without logic, what are our grounds for discussion? How do we know anything?
One could simply retort that Marcuse could reach for Hegel's logic, or combine his work with some other continental approaches, but MaCintyre doesn't allow for this, and again rather than throwing Marcuse a bone, he critiques him for not addressing an issue which wasn't his primary concern, and could have been dealt with.
MaCintyre's last critique addresses Marcuse's Marxism. Marcuse saw socialism as a panacea for a pretty much everything. In 'Eros and Civilisation' Marcuse paints an Earthly utopia of free love and people who labour expressively and freely. Of course he offers little of how or why this would work, other than expanding on Freudo-Marxist categories by stretching and moulding, and ignoring praxis. MaCintyre takes aim at this kind of empty humanism and dreamy notion of liberation. MaCintyre rejects Marcuse's humanism and non-Marxist, although critics like Leszek Kolakowski have pointed out, Marcuse barely was a Marxist, and it's unfair to call him insufficiently Marxist, considering the Frankfurt School drifted so far from Leninism or even 'classical' Marxists. MaCintyre points to quotes from Marx, Lenin and Trotsky to support his thesis, and further claims that Marcuse's programme and lack of focus on praxis would ultimately lend itself to nothing but brute authoritarianism, despite Marcuse critiquing that very authoritarianism in the USSR. Whilst this critique is key, and can be extended to much Frankfurt School theory, it does ignore Marcuse's siding with the New Left, and the ignorance of the fact that the Frankfurt School wanted to free Marxism from praxis, to create a critical theory which was separate from the dirty work of real life activisim and revolution, which is confusing since MaCintyre references the books wherein these ideas are expounded.
MaCintyre does point out some critical problems with Marcuse and his theory, but he ignores much of the point of the Marcuse's work and the Frankfurt School, and appears to let his analytic bias blind him to the fact that he's engaging with somebody in a totally different tradition. But this is worth reading for a fan of the Marcuse's work.
MaCintyre centres his critique of four lines of attack:
1- Marcuse's notion of truth
2- Marcuse's history of culture
3- Marcuse's correlation of politics and various philosophies
4-Marcuse's relationship to 'classical' Marxism.
Issue 1 is dealt with pretty poorly. He just bemoans the fact that Marcuse distances himself from the analytic, and rather authoritarian obsession with truth. For MaCintyre, truth is either the positivist facts he has decided are truth, or else you're simply talking hogwash. Whilst it's correct that Marcuse doesn't address this as well as he could, at least based on my limited reading of him, it doesn't mean that his notion of truth is garbage, it simply isn't his focus. Instead of trashing him, MaCintyre should've looked elsewhere. The critique is similar to me criticising Wittgenstein for refusing to address feminism, and therefore labelling the 'Tractatus' sexist. Marcuse's critique doesn't embrace a postmodern ideal of truth, it critiques the positivist ahistorical notion of truth, something plenty of philosophers have done.
Marcuse's history of culture and philosophy is critiqued for being selective. Marcuse, following a slightly revised Marxist history of culture, interprets philosophies in generalities, for example the 20th century rise of Phenomonelogy shows a society sliding into fascism. MaCintyre takes aim at this kind of historicising, as it tends to overgeneralise and often ignores the opposing tendencies as well as the political commitments of said philosophers.
Linked with Marcuse's history of philosophy is his idea of philosophy and commitment. Marcuse's critique of 'contemporary philosophy' is against the rising analytic school of Russell, Frege, Austin etc. By obsessing over ahistorical facts and logic, it ignores the historicity of knowledge and the social conditions surrounding it. However, MaCintyre questions how this analytic philosophy is pro-status quo, for MaCintyre analytic philosophy simply provides universal and clear categories for thought, to prevent it being a meaningless Saussurian ribbon of sound. Without logic, what are our grounds for discussion? How do we know anything?
One could simply retort that Marcuse could reach for Hegel's logic, or combine his work with some other continental approaches, but MaCintyre doesn't allow for this, and again rather than throwing Marcuse a bone, he critiques him for not addressing an issue which wasn't his primary concern, and could have been dealt with.
MaCintyre's last critique addresses Marcuse's Marxism. Marcuse saw socialism as a panacea for a pretty much everything. In 'Eros and Civilisation' Marcuse paints an Earthly utopia of free love and people who labour expressively and freely. Of course he offers little of how or why this would work, other than expanding on Freudo-Marxist categories by stretching and moulding, and ignoring praxis. MaCintyre takes aim at this kind of empty humanism and dreamy notion of liberation. MaCintyre rejects Marcuse's humanism and non-Marxist, although critics like Leszek Kolakowski have pointed out, Marcuse barely was a Marxist, and it's unfair to call him insufficiently Marxist, considering the Frankfurt School drifted so far from Leninism or even 'classical' Marxists. MaCintyre points to quotes from Marx, Lenin and Trotsky to support his thesis, and further claims that Marcuse's programme and lack of focus on praxis would ultimately lend itself to nothing but brute authoritarianism, despite Marcuse critiquing that very authoritarianism in the USSR. Whilst this critique is key, and can be extended to much Frankfurt School theory, it does ignore Marcuse's siding with the New Left, and the ignorance of the fact that the Frankfurt School wanted to free Marxism from praxis, to create a critical theory which was separate from the dirty work of real life activisim and revolution, which is confusing since MaCintyre references the books wherein these ideas are expounded.
MaCintyre does point out some critical problems with Marcuse and his theory, but he ignores much of the point of the Marcuse's work and the Frankfurt School, and appears to let his analytic bias blind him to the fact that he's engaging with somebody in a totally different tradition. But this is worth reading for a fan of the Marcuse's work.