Most signficant 20th century philosophcal work

[phildwyer]

I'm tempted to say Adorno's "Negative Dialectics," because it demolishes Heidegger, among other reasons.

But the final verdict goes to Debord's "Society of the Spectacle." For influence and aptness alike.

 

[Dillinger4]

 

[Dillinger4]

that's a highly questionable judgement - that fact that M-P is responding to the limitations of Husserl, and is aware of Heidegger's similar point of critique does not make M-P in any way a slavish adherent of the latter.

^

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But the final verdict goes to Debord's "Society of the Spectacle." For influence and aptness alike.

Most significant in that it sums up the era, or because it is the 20th century's contribution to philosophy? In a few hundred years' time, I doubt anyone will be reading Debord except as a means to understand his time.

 

[phildwyer]

Most significant in that it sums up the era, or because it is the 20th century's contribution to philosophy? In a few hundred years' time, I doubt anyone will be reading Debord except as a means to understand his time.

True, his value is diagnostic. He synthesizes and applies advances made by others in a particularly apposite form shall we say.

 

[phildwyer]

Changed my mind. "Of Grammatology."

 

[Knotted]

Trotsky:
Their Morals and Ours
A little over long for a work on morality - a bit of frippery here and there - but otherwise flawless.

 

[butchersapron]

I wanted to ask, all these books have their sigificance on philosophy but very little on real life, so can i put in Lenin's unpublished works on hegel in 192-14 if real life significane is to be counted. (and i'm off for a meeting in 10 minutes so feel free to shout at me for being a philistine in the meantime, esp you marxists who reckon you want to abolish philisopophy RIP Fraklin Rosemont).

 

[Santino]

that's a highly questionable judgement - that fact that M-P is responding to the limitations of Husserl, and is aware of Heidegger's similar point of critique does not make M-P in any way a slavish adherent of the latter.

That's a crass and false dichotomy. The fact that Merleau-Ponty is not a slavish adherent to Heidegger does not mean that his work is unthinkable without Heidegger's influence.

 

[articul8]

I wanted to ask, all these books have their sigificance on philosophy but very little on real life, so can i put in Lenin's unpublished works on hegel in 192-14 if real life significane is to be counted. (and i'm off for a meeting in 10 minutes so feel free to shout at me for being a philistine in the meantime, esp you marxists who reckon you want to abolish philisopophy RIP Fraklin Rosemont).

Shit - has Rosemont died. Yes, I'd agree that Lenin's philosophical notebooks should be here.

 

[articul8]

That's a crass and false dichotomy.

there is no dichotomy - I'm just saying linear teleology doesn't equate to direct intellectual influence

 

[Santino]

there is no dichotomy - I'm just saying linear teleology doesn't equate to direct intellectual influence

Oh yeah, not dichotomy. That other thing. Wossname.

 

[phildwyer]

I wanted to ask, all these books have their sigificance on philosophy but very little on real life, so can i put in Lenin's unpublished works on hegel in 192-14 if real life significane is to be counted.

To show Where Everything Went Wrong you mean? Yes.

 

[Barking_Mad]

Bez is indeed one of the great thinkers of our time.

As for Heidegger - Adorno sets it out far more thoroughly and elegantly than I can. Essentially his work denies the revolutionary potential of the historical moment by hypostasisng a notion of "historicity" that already assumes that abstract futurity exists as the horizon to which Dasein orients its life-project.

Like you needed to tell me

 

[gorski]

FL is right. I'd add "Subject-Object" by the same culprit.

Marcuse's "Reason and Revolution", "One Dimensional Man" and "Eros and Civilisation", too.

Rosa Luxembourg had some impact - if power/influence "here and now" is the yardstick.

But if that is so, then Stalin & co. ought to be there by any and all means necessary. But that's Butcher's "logic" [read: fooked up heart and mind] for ya... But then again, if Heidegger and M-P are "influential" and "significant"...

Also, Lukacs with his "History and Class Consciousness".

Reich was the one opening up Social Psychology, putting together Marx and Freud, indebting [is there such a word in English?] us greatly!

I would, of course, bring in Habermas, following Hanna Arendt etc. etc.

The criteria, the Q of criteria comes up, doesn't it?!?

Well, what say you, methodologically speaking?

Cheerio!