As leftists is it worth it for us to read him or was Lukacs right about him?
As leftists is it worth it for us to read him or was Lukacs right about him?
Parker Foster
Parker White
You can become the next Rebel Absurdity
Camden Barnes
No thanks. What happened to him anyway? He deleted all of his social media accounts.
Liam Rogers
No she didn't :^)
Ethan Cox
He got doxed, at least that's what I've heard.
Liam Cook
so is rebel really a tranny now?
Cooper Turner
The only thing I know is that they look cute in a skirt.
Joseph Collins
Talk about Kierkegaard, not e-celebs
Lucas Stewart
What was Lukacs problem with him?
Asher Green
On Lukacs' interpretation, the dissolution of the Hegelian tradition meant radical irrationalism in Kierkegaard's works, since this more advanced irrationalism negates the social and historical dialectics that were present in Hegel. Lukacs defines it as qualitative dialectics substituting the Hegelian one, although in the analysis of the Hungarian author it lacks all determinations that make the dialectical method really dialectical. In the Danish thinker's views as interpreted by Lukacs, "he thus de-historicized and de-socialized Hegelian dialectics" to focus only on "the artificially isolated individual, the only existence that is relevant here." Conclusively, in Kierkegaard's views the objectivity of history becomes "pure fatalism" for human beings, since in the theater of history God is the only spectator. History is thus isolated from the individual and becomes irrational and senseless, and opposes reason; despair is the only adequate reaction to all these from the side of the individual. The criticism of Hegel from the angle of hegemony of subjectivity was mistaken, according to Lukacs' evaluation of Kierkegaard's contribution to philosophy. The Danish thinker also had doubts in approaching "objective reality," and so dialectics were turned into metaphysics and into formal logic.
Kierkegaard's role was once fundamental for Lukacs' concept of religious atheism and that opened the road for his secularized messianism. Atheism was a new form of religion on Lukacs' interpretation in his notes on Dostoevsky, since negating God could be the last step before faith. Regarding Kierkegaard's faith, the Hungarian author argues that religion withdraws more and more into the inner dimensions of the human being, and meanwhile science dominates a bigger part of the outside world. Faith can be saved only by the "inner realm" (Innerlichkeit), concludes Lukacs, and communicating it becomes impossible, as is expressed so powerfully in Fear and Trembling. Religion can be saved only by positing the singular above the universal as Abraham did, but in this way ethics is erased from religion and not dialectically negated, Lukacs concludes. An incognito is created in this process as the Hungarian thinker could well remember the conclusion of his own dilemmas some decades previous.
When discussing the system of Kierkegaard's thinking, Lukacs highlights the close similarity of the aesthetic and religious stages, since pure and final subjectivity is revealed in both. He describes the aesthetic sphere as a mentality or behavior not necessarily as a work of art, and considers it to be the inheritance of Romanticism. The borderlines between the aesthetic and religious are washed away, and the ethical sphere may serve as only something transitory, leading from the premature phase to the only reality of solitary existence: religion. According to this logic, Christianity is neither doctrine nor teaching for Kierkegaard - since then it would be Hegelian - nor does it require community. The only characteristic of faith thus becomes the pure and final subjectivity, hiding the abyss of deep despair and final nihilism.
(cont.)
Charles Hernandez
The space for human relationships is extremely limited in Kierkegaard's works, for example, the way marriage is presented in Either/Or. Social and historical determinations in general evaporate in his Weltanschauung. There is no connection between souls at all, and thus despair and irrationality are the dominate forces. Lukacs describes Kierkegaard's aesthetic stage as "anti-ethical," while religion by definition is "beyond ethics." The human being is isolated from the historical and social context, and so remains solitary and powerless.
To Lukacs, all these serve as the "reactionary bourgeoisie's tactics" to maintain its influence and to suppress lower social classes. Even if Kierkegaard was honest in a subjective sense, nonetheless he was representing such social trends that he himself was not aware of. Kierkegaard's "romantic anti-capitalism" as Lukacs described his opposition to the society he lived, was in fact an indirect defense of the existing system, since the "un-socialization" of the human being concluded in the annihilation of the ethical. All these were to express the "mood of feeling of an intellectual bourgeois stratum which had become deracinated and parasitical." Even when Kierkegaard was fighting against the Romantic aesthete type of his age, he was basically challenging his own mentality in vain. By the appearance of Marxism and of the workers' movement, the bourgeois views proved to be empty constructions that were unable to hold any intellectual weight. Kierkegaard's answers were nothing more than the distorted questions themselves, and his views served as "the refuge for stranded aesthetes."
Kierkegaard's influence on Lukacs' diagnosis reached its peak on the eve of Hitler's coming to power, since before that positivism underminded the Danish thinker's popularity. The political and social crises of the 1930s greatly contributed to the ideological confusion of the pre-World War II years and made intellectuals more receptive to extreme ideas. For Kierkegaard, the fight against the revolution occupied the center of his world-view. This was significant for Lukacs, although the two shared the criticism concerning modern mass society and bourgeois democracy. Yet the Danish thinker, according to The Destruction of Reason, represented reactionary tendencies; "his irrationality [gives rises to] a pseudo-dialectic and irrationalism is clad in pseudo-dialectical forms." Kierkegaard's views in general served as the "typical form for the intelligentsia's 'reactionary neutralization,'" and proved to be an indirect defense of bourgeois society. Soon all these were used by the Nazis to get into power, making intellectuals defenseless or turning them into collaborators.
In the final analysis, Kierkegaard was, for Lukacs, a pioneer of "reactionary behavior" when facing nothingness and reaching out for faith in vain.
Tl;dr - Kierkegaard a shit.
Thomas Myers
Did Adorno ever comment on this? I know he heavily disagreed with Lukács' Destruction of Reason but I never read a concise critique of it by him or any Marxist for that matter.
Hudson Rivera
Did he? I thought Adorno's problem with Lukacs was History and Class Consciousness (i.e. proles as the subject-object of history).
William Butler
He made some snarky remarks about the only destructed reason being Lukács' own.
Noah Rogers
S-senpai noticed us…
Caleb Hill
Xexizy if you're reading this you should read some kierkegaard and nietzsche bro
Evan Lopez
I would actually really like to, but first I'm reading Kant and Descartes so I can read Hegel so I can real Capital.
I'll get around to it though, Nietzsche especially seems really cool.
Also I do see the irony in further moving the thread off topic.
Lucas Kelly
Oh shit, you're actually reading something important
Also, if you ever have the time, look through some of the stuff in this little essay:
home.mira.net
Tyler Hernandez
You don't need to read Hegel to read Capital. I mean, sure, it's nice. But it would also be nice to get a PhD in economics before reading Piketty. If you constantly delay reading stuff because of a desire to be completely "prepared" for it, you will never get around to reading works actually relevant to the here and now because you'll spend the rest of your life following the evolution of Classical and Medieval thought.
Angel Hughes
Lenin says otherwise.
I'll save it, thanks.
Asher Martin
Hegel is needed for Capital. After Hegel, Capital makes much more sense
Jayden Perez
...
Justin Nguyen
fucking delusional hegelfags
Capital has nothing to do with Hegel
Jeremiah Campbell
I'd prefer to go by Lenin's own words, but even if it's wrong, it's not like reading Logic is a bad thing anyway.
Jaxson Peterson
Yes it does. The dialectical relation between use value, exchange value and the commodity are 100% Hegel
Josiah Roberts
twitter.com
This is his account now, but he doesn't post anything of interest.
Blake Miller
Delete this please. It'd be best if he was left alone
Adam Gutierrez
you fucking retard
hegel's dialectics are so incomprehensible that you cannot speak of any relation at all
David Evans
Carter Stewart
do I really need to bring up Epistemological Break?
Andrew Ward
The point is that it is emphatically possible to "understand" Marx without Hegel, at least to the level required for the average politically-minded person. Sure, if you want to be a scholar of Marx then Hegel would seem essential. But Holla Forums gives terrible advice with all these endless book lists. The average person is overwhlemed. I was lucky enough to get a degree in Economics and Philosophy, and so I've been able to read a lot of the supporting literature, but you can't expect people outside of the academy to be abe to devote all that time to it. It's okay to start with Marx and branch out for clarification and elaboration as needed.
Julian Richardson
Well ofc, not everyone needs to or even most, but I just prefer personally to try and properly understand it from the philopshical as well as economic level.
Blake Scott
He was so eager to post trap pics that he forgot to strip them of exif data.
Now he's on redwatch.
Josiah Jenkins
Top fucking kek. Please say you're just joking.
Owen Hill
wow fam. Read "The Destruction of Reason" by Georg Lukács and drop Irrationalism