In the age where capital becomes the most dominant, the most manipulating power, the current aesthetics has to face and solve the problems such as ＂capital versus aesthetics＂, ＂matter nature versus mind nature＂, ...In the age where capital becomes the most dominant, the most manipulating power, the current aesthetics has to face and solve the problems such as ＂capital versus aesthetics＂, ＂matter nature versus mind nature＂, ＂society versus culture＂ and has to answer the follow-up question--＂How could people＇s freedom be possible in modem conditions？＂ The reflections and criticism on ＂capital modernity＂ by Marx, Weber and Simmel all directly pointed to the issues of people＇s value and the settlement of their spirit in the Age of Capital. Meanwhile, the salvation of the ＂aesthetic modernity＂ makes up the proper meaning of the solution in many thinkers＇ mind to the predicament of the age. In this sense, the reflections on the Zeitgeist in the Age of Capital is certainly included in the pursuit of aesthetic freedom in this age.展开更多
In the 40s and the 50s of the last century existed a largely shared conviction amongst the majority of social scientists in the US regarding the explanation of the theoretical philosophical roots of National Socialism...In the 40s and the 50s of the last century existed a largely shared conviction amongst the majority of social scientists in the US regarding the explanation of the theoretical philosophical roots of National Socialism. Contrarily to European writers, who searched its philosophical origins in irrational philosophical traditions, in the US, they relied upon the perception that Hegel＇s Philosophy of State was the most relevant ideological basis of National Socialism. Hegel＇s idea for the need of a strong state, seemed to clearly support the hypothesis. Herbert Marcuse, exiled in the United States, bad to confront himself with this conviction that academic colleague shared. This theoretical hypothesis was in tune to the Zeitgeist and the political context, in which anticommunism was growing stronger by the day and where the cold war was developing. Associating Hegel and National Socialism implied, for most of the hypothesis defenders yet another vantage point： it could discredit also Marx, for the tights links between his philosophical thinking and Hegel＇s one. For Marcuse this hypothesis was even more problematic knowing that in Germany, national socialist philosophers had rejected Hegel from the very first day their party came to power. In this article we try to analyze Marcuse＇s respective philosophical argument. The point of departure of this reconstruction is the philosophical interpretation of Hegel＇s theory of the State. Further than the historical context, the debate on Hegel and his theory of the State, is very relevant for today＇s debates, dominated by neoliberal ideologies, which often are starting from similar theoretical errors than the mentioned. In both cases exists a lack of understanding of the classic bourgeois content within the concept of the State, based on the French Revolution.展开更多
文摘In the age where capital becomes the most dominant, the most manipulating power, the current aesthetics has to face and solve the problems such as ＂capital versus aesthetics＂, ＂matter nature versus mind nature＂, ＂society versus culture＂ and has to answer the follow-up question--＂How could people＇s freedom be possible in modem conditions？＂ The reflections and criticism on ＂capital modernity＂ by Marx, Weber and Simmel all directly pointed to the issues of people＇s value and the settlement of their spirit in the Age of Capital. Meanwhile, the salvation of the ＂aesthetic modernity＂ makes up the proper meaning of the solution in many thinkers＇ mind to the predicament of the age. In this sense, the reflections on the Zeitgeist in the Age of Capital is certainly included in the pursuit of aesthetic freedom in this age.
文摘In the 40s and the 50s of the last century existed a largely shared conviction amongst the majority of social scientists in the US regarding the explanation of the theoretical philosophical roots of National Socialism. Contrarily to European writers, who searched its philosophical origins in irrational philosophical traditions, in the US, they relied upon the perception that Hegel＇s Philosophy of State was the most relevant ideological basis of National Socialism. Hegel＇s idea for the need of a strong state, seemed to clearly support the hypothesis. Herbert Marcuse, exiled in the United States, bad to confront himself with this conviction that academic colleague shared. This theoretical hypothesis was in tune to the Zeitgeist and the political context, in which anticommunism was growing stronger by the day and where the cold war was developing. Associating Hegel and National Socialism implied, for most of the hypothesis defenders yet another vantage point： it could discredit also Marx, for the tights links between his philosophical thinking and Hegel＇s one. For Marcuse this hypothesis was even more problematic knowing that in Germany, national socialist philosophers had rejected Hegel from the very first day their party came to power. In this article we try to analyze Marcuse＇s respective philosophical argument. The point of departure of this reconstruction is the philosophical interpretation of Hegel＇s theory of the State. Further than the historical context, the debate on Hegel and his theory of the State, is very relevant for today＇s debates, dominated by neoliberal ideologies, which often are starting from similar theoretical errors than the mentioned. In both cases exists a lack of understanding of the classic bourgeois content within the concept of the State, based on the French Revolution.
