Dialectic of Enlightenment

[bkadoctaj]

Yeah, this pretty much simplifies it even enough for the rationalists to get the point fairly objectively.

Dialectic of Enlightenment, is the core text of Marxist Critical Theory explaining the socio-psychological status quo that had been responsible for, what the Frankfurt School considered, the failure of the Enlightenment.
In essence, Adorno and Horkheimer argue that the Enlightenment turned "magical" culture, which looked for associations, analogies, and relationships, into a scientific culture, which sought to reduce everything to the irreducible, to base units of measurement, to the smallest particles, and as often as possible to numbers. This resulted in an inability to address problems of relationships, and often of anything to do with the irrational (e.g., sexuality, emotion, etc.), as well as larger cultural concerns that could not be reduced to the individual. The ideological structure had the tendency, common to most political ideologies, of arguing for its own accuracy. This kind of enlightenment thinking, they argue, always implicitly claims that anything that is not reducible or quantifiable is simply not worth paying attention to. It is immaterial in the metaphorical sense: it might as well not exist. Thus, concepts as divergent as subjectivity (which cannot be measured or objectified) and collective action (which is always understood as merely the action of many individuals) cannot be understood because precisely what needs to be understood is relational and/or subjective. This "magical" versus "scientific" thinking is easily recognizable in the two solitudes of contemporary Humanities and Sciences research in universities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic_of_Enlightenment

[Liquidtruth]

I would disagree that it is subjective. I am sure it can be quantified, even if we cannot do so yet. Why do I say that? All of your emotions/thoughts/feelings/desires/etc... are simply chemical processes occurring in your brain. It is physical, and as such, should certainly be quantifiable. The clues as to why people do what they do are in their DNA and Environment.

At least, that is my take on that.

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

I would disagree that it is subjective. I am sure it can be quantified, even if we cannot do so yet. Why do I say that? All of your emotions/thoughts/feelings/desires/etc... are simply chemical processes occurring in your brain. It is physical, and as such, should certainly be quantifiable. The clues as to why people do what they do are in their DNA and Environment.

Those are external clues. The internal clues are important because those deal with how we react/respond to those external clues. That part we can never measure on the same scale, clearly.

[Cali Ounces]

word,

our "advancement" is not only forward steps. .

with all the new revelations we have made, more and more are we forgetting the basic tools inherent in us as we're born. instead we choose to replace what is inherent with what we percieve as necessary, or perhaps mandated.

interesting. . .

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

Those are external clues. The internal clues are important because those deal with how we react/respond to those external clues. That part we can never measure on the same scale, clearly.

Can you explain that further?

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

Can you explain that further?

Like, the thoughts you and I have are so abstract we can't line them up with our simple "me" perception.

[Liquidtruth]

Originally Posted by bkadoctaj

Like, the thoughts you and I have are so abstract we can't line them up with our simple "me" perception.

lol, can you explain that in greater detail as well?

[bkadoctaj]

Originally Posted by Liquidtruth

lol, can you explain that in greater detail as well?

Okay, in scientific terms, you have a stimulus. You have perceivers of this stimulus. You have subjective (individual) responses to this stimulus (based on relative and perceived separation/distance/location). Communication about the stimulus between perceivers is not the stimulus! Thus, the closest understanding of the stimulus is, in the end, you. There are so many "you"s out there, often thinking they are always right on the surface, but deep down understanding that they are not. The reality is in the abstract.

I don't know exactly how to link this in words, but it is comparable to the worth of imaginary numbers in math. Comparable to that concept of i representing a concept we don't even acknowledge as being possible to exist.