{"title":"结论","authors":"Mikko Immanen","doi":"10.7591/cornell/9781501752377.003.0010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This chapter reviews Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and Herbert Marcuse's articulation of the initial versions of their neo-Marxist critical theories from 1927 to 1933. It talks about critical theorists who saw neo-Kantian trust in bourgeois culture and science as a product of the bygone pre-1914 era. It also details how Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse rejected idealist narratives of history, hypostatization of instrumental labor, and economic and contemplative explanations of human motivation. The chapter demonstrates how Marxism does not entail a view of history as a preordained success story or an image of the human being as animal laborans or homo economicus. It provides a historical reconstruction of Heidegger's role in Marcuse's concrete philosophy, Adorno's natural history, and Horkheimer's materialism as critical rejoinders to Heidegger's Being and Time.","PeriodicalId":181148,"journal":{"name":"Toward a Concrete Philosophy","volume":"223 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Conclusion\",\"authors\":\"Mikko Immanen\",\"doi\":\"10.7591/cornell/9781501752377.003.0010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This chapter reviews Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and Herbert Marcuse's articulation of the initial versions of their neo-Marxist critical theories from 1927 to 1933. It talks about critical theorists who saw neo-Kantian trust in bourgeois culture and science as a product of the bygone pre-1914 era. It also details how Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse rejected idealist narratives of history, hypostatization of instrumental labor, and economic and contemplative explanations of human motivation. The chapter demonstrates how Marxism does not entail a view of history as a preordained success story or an image of the human being as animal laborans or homo economicus. It provides a historical reconstruction of Heidegger's role in Marcuse's concrete philosophy, Adorno's natural history, and Horkheimer's materialism as critical rejoinders to Heidegger's Being and Time.\",\"PeriodicalId\":181148,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Toward a Concrete Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"223 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Toward a Concrete Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7591/cornell/9781501752377.003.0010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Toward a Concrete Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7591/cornell/9781501752377.003.0010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本章回顾西奥多·阿多诺、马克斯·霍克海默和赫伯特·马尔库塞从1927年到1933年对他们的新马克思主义批判理论的最初版本的阐述。它谈到了批判理论家,他们认为新康德主义对资产阶级文化和科学的信任是过去的1914年以前时代的产物。它还详细说明了阿多诺、霍克海默和马尔库塞是如何拒绝唯心主义的历史叙述、工具劳动的物质化,以及对人类动机的经济和沉思解释。这一章展示了马克思主义如何没有把历史看作是一个预定的成功故事,也没有把人类看作是动物劳动者或经济人。它提供了海德格尔在马尔库塞的具体哲学、阿多诺的自然史和霍克海默的唯物主义中所扮演的角色的历史重建,作为对海德格尔的存在与时间的批判性反驳。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Conclusion
This chapter reviews Theodor W. Adorno, Max Horkheimer, and Herbert Marcuse's articulation of the initial versions of their neo-Marxist critical theories from 1927 to 1933. It talks about critical theorists who saw neo-Kantian trust in bourgeois culture and science as a product of the bygone pre-1914 era. It also details how Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse rejected idealist narratives of history, hypostatization of instrumental labor, and economic and contemplative explanations of human motivation. The chapter demonstrates how Marxism does not entail a view of history as a preordained success story or an image of the human being as animal laborans or homo economicus. It provides a historical reconstruction of Heidegger's role in Marcuse's concrete philosophy, Adorno's natural history, and Horkheimer's materialism as critical rejoinders to Heidegger's Being and Time.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Being and Time Conclusion Acknowledgments 3. Stakes of the Hegel Debate: Davos, Marxism, and the Black Notebooks 4. The Frankfurt Discussion: A Sequel to the Epochal Davos Disputation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1