Where modern philosophy went wrong...

[articul8]

the subject can't be the undifferentiated whole - unless you mean in some Lukacsian subject/object of History.

OK you're right - the subject affirms the choice which it was unable not to make.

 

[Knotted]

the subject can't be the undifferentiated whole - unless you mean in some Lukacsian subject/object of History.

Well, yes! Lukacs didn't invent this, its the central question of Marxism and in particular its resolution is the relation between Marxism and Hegel's system. Anything else is methodological solipsism ie. positivism.

 

[articul8]

You can keep open the possibility of some future speculative moment of reconciliation without believing that we can already identify a subject that already contains the absolute within itself..

subjectivity in the sense we recognise is only possible because it is riven with the non-identical (as Freud amongst others pointed out) - this doesn't mean that it makes sense to pursue a 'reality' minus subjectivity.

 

[gorski]

Let's get serious for a moment, here:

If one doesn't "already have the absolute within itself [as a potentiality] it ain't ever gonna get there...

Animals can't. But we can. We have the potential. Fullstop!

At the beginning there was Future!

Or we're not Humans!!!!!!

Speculative or what?

 

[articul8]

well, we might have the potentiality - but simply to assert it is dogmatism. Only if the absolute fully sublates subjectivity in all its historical moments would that be realised. Ultimately it could only be revealed "in the light of redemption". Otherwise, talk of immediately realising some human essence is in effect a call for the dissolution of subjectivity - uncritical unfreedom!

(Adorno contra Marcuse! )