Philosophical outlooks and polemics between herbert marcuse

INTRODUCTIONThe middle of XX ampere-second marked new era in the western ism shaping of modern mass culture, aftersounds of the second serviceman War, growing opposition surrounded by heartyistic and capitalistic regimes caused emergence of a so-c every(prenominal)ed second crisis in a western social philosophy. The brightest representatives of that time philosophic paradigm were German American philosopher Herbert Marcuse, an offspring of a well-known Frankfurt school and native American philosopher Norman Oliver chocolate-brown.They represented ii different approaches in social philosophy. Being a witness of German stacks struggles during Nazi regime Marcuse formed his outlook as a leftist philosopher and sociologist get a partisan of a Freudian-Marxist philosophy. Pessimistic perspectives of Norman Brown on the contrary determined his apocalyptical mystical outlooks. These philosophical approaches of two brightest scientists of the last century need to be comp ared and strained.MAIN DISCUSSIONDuring the 1960s the philosophical debates between H. Marcuse and N. Brown concerning interpretation of Freudian ideas made a serious impact on the development of social philosophy. As J. Chytry (Chytry, 1989) believes, Norman Browns and Herbert Marcuses interpretations of Freud seemed to point to meaningful, and opposed, orientations for the New Left a new paradigm in social sciences during middle XX century. During this period of time Freud, as many another(prenominal) scientists believe, appeared as the successor to a superannuated, but not yet surpassed, Marxist project (Zaretsky, 2002). This discussion of Freudian ideas also influenced interpretations of aesthetics, culture and politics.In the middle of XX century both(prenominal) Marcuse and Brown developed own vision of Freudian ideas in a general philosophical and cultural context Two books of two philosophers written in the 1950s are captivating explorations of Freuds outlooks and the implications of psychoanalytical ideas of sexuality on human freedom. Herbert Marcuses Eros and Civilization, published first focused on the role of sexuality in forming of modern civilization and humans.The second is Life Against Death by Norman O. Brown who developed Freudian idea of inhibition and applied it to the general civilizations context. Generalizing the main ideas of two examinations its necessary to mention that both authors focused on remedial therapeutic strategies commensurate to cure diseased society of XX century infected by revolutionary ideas, aggression, intolerance etc. Orthodox psychoanalysis as both Brown and Marcuse believed suggests society a principle of reality and ethics of survival. The logics of this survival they, however, see in different manners. In a word, they stood on different psychological positions fit in to which society exists.The polemics between Marcuse and Brown wasnt literally a virtual one. Being close friends they often criticized philosophical outlooks of one another afterwards. Nevertheless that both philosophers were troubled with the same idea to help pinched society the visions of such help were different. Marcuse believed in the primacy of kick upstairs and technique that is to replace out of time relationships between great deal. Brown on the contrary believed in palliative imaginative escape from the hassles. With this one should define the main doctrines of two philosophers Marcuse stood on the ideas of rationality while Brown, in his turn, looked for imaginative escape from the reality.Norman Brown believed that repressed sexuality of people appears the primary reason for their aggression. To avoid aggressiveness of people Brown suggests his idea of polymorphous crotchetiness believing that each person and every part of the body are to be used in all-round sexual play (Myers, 2004). Brown in full supports Freuds idea of unconsciousness and develops it quite logically. He believed that psychoanalytical mechani sm of suppression serves negative function for people provoking their intolerance and aggression. Instead, Brown voted for variety of subliminal ideas to rational ones.As far as Eros is the primary subliminal drive of people Brown suggests to construct an erotic grit of reality that fashion to realize peoples implicit sexual desires. A primary goal of society, observing Brown is to establish chaos or anarchy where all people are free from anger and realize their sexual ambitions. Marcuse, however, believed that freedom could be achieved through transformation of technology writing that Freedom indeed depends for the most part on technical progress, on the advancement of science.To achieve this freedom Marcuse votes for the necessity of technological changes in accordance with the new sensible demands of the life instincts. Then, agree to Marcuse, one could speak of a technology of liberation, product of a scientific imagination free to project and design the forms of a human un iverse without exploitation and toil (Marcuse, 1966, p. 19).The Freudian Marxist Herbert Marcuse also inspired by Freudian symbolism believed in its crucial role in social and political contexts. He believed that revolutions, anger, freedom etc. are nothing more than symbolic ideas, objectives and events that have their roots in repressed peoples sexual energy. Nevertheless, on the contrast to Brown Marcuse saw final goal of the society in establishing of Marxist society where all people entrust finally be socially equal.These ideas are closely interrelated with further Marcuses ideas of One-dimensional men. Marcuse, along with Marxists blames free market and private property for all mans economic and social ills. He believes that these ills can be cured only by the abolition of private property. Brown in his turn believed that harmony means love and devotedness being, hence, more close in his ideas to Christian and Buddhist theologies.While Brown called for establishment of a n ew chaotic society Marcuse developed own vision of changes. He called for the renewing of the very fundamentals of society that would be modified by the elimination of class society.Suggesting himself more rational approach to Freudian interpretation Marcuse believed that Browns ideas completely contrast with practice he recognized Browns mad monism to be violenceless to bring about political and social improvement. Marcuse did not believe it likely to replace technology with some sort of mystical unity of man and nature. He, besides, considered that Freudian ideas fail in helping of peoples adjustment to society. With this Marcuse was appressed to Freud himself who was also pessimistic about achieving long-term benefits for society in general through psychoanalysis.Brown, in his turn, was looking for different psychoanalytically based solutions for peoples harmony. He believed that to reduce man to nothingness (a chaos) is to find a best solution to societys and peoples deepest problem, i.e. social existence. Brown believed that to achieve indestructible social harmony people are to forget of their superiority over other creature that, according to Freud, tierces to serious mental neuroses. According to Brown, when the idea of power and domination first emerged it appeared a reason for all problems. Marcuse, in his turn also supported this idea of peoples drive to the power as a strong reason for social problems and aggressions between people and nations.Marcuse, voting for rationality in societys development strongly objected Browns belief in schizophrenia as a normal state of a person. He considered the idea that schizophrenia should be in any sense a model for normal human behavior to be ludicrous. Contrasting Browns ideas of social escapism Marcuse believed that people could achieve social progress and harmony through reality and clear definition of existing problems. Escape from the reality, observing Marcuse, is not a solution at all instead, it w ill lead to furthermore social and political problems.Critically speaking, Browns ideas dont look so Utopian. Voting for living without repressions Brown shows society a feasible solution to achieve harmonic development. This solution lies in self-control and abnegation of people necessary to arrive them more tolerable and loyal to the others. Marcuse instead believed that self-denial is not a solution at all.The only working remedy that could cure ill society and make it indeed multi-dimensional (where all people will finally achieve their individuality and will not identify themselves with the state) is revolution. The only force that could make this revolution is lumpen proletarians. Illustrating these philosophic ideas in a more free manner one could say that Brown anticipated Hippys movement with their motto All you need is love while Marcuse on the contrary was a partisan of International and Marseillaise.Marcuse criticized Browns ideas of self-expression saying that theres no sense to to try to turn the assembly distinguish into a scene of self-expression, or to broadcast propaganda for culture and free thought. To achieve final self-expression of people its necessary, observing Marcuse, to change technological rationality itself, make it more people-centered and friendly.Critically observing Freudian ideas of Id, Ego and Superego Marcuse came to the conclusion that the only way to conciliate people and nations is to conciliate peoples rationality and irrationality. When rationality contrasts Eros, Marcuse believed, people establish the culture that is adverse to human nature and represses people permanently. A perfect illustrations of the struggle between rationality and repressed Eros, according to Marcuse are public Wars that were the results of peoples aggression.Being a partisan of technological progress Marcuse at the same time appealed to the aesthetic experience as a new locus of technological values. With this, he believed, people could fi nally become close with the nature and achieve peace, freedom, and fulfillment into the construction of technological rationality.CONCLUSIONSIn the middle of XX century philosophy focused on reinterpretation of Freudian psychoanalytical ideas. Herbert Marcuse and Norman Brown each developed personal vision of the issue. Reconsidering Freuds ideas of unconsciousness and focusing in the problem of repression they, nevertheless, pointed out different solutions necessary to make society more harmonic and free. While Marcuse concentrated on technological breakthrough in accordance with peoples deep demands, Brown believed in complete abolishment of technology and called for anarchy in peoples relationships.REFERENCES Brown, Norman O. (1985) Life Against Death. Middleton. CN Weslayan University Press. Second Edition. 1985.Chytry, Josef (1989). The aesthetic State A Quest in Modern German Thought Berkeley University of California Press.Marcuse, Herbert. (1966). Eros and Civilization A Phi losophical Inquiry into Freud. Beacon Press.Myers, Ellen (2004). precursor of New Age Madness A Critique of Norman O. Brown On-line article retrieved July, 23 from http//www.creationism.org/csshs/v13n1p07.htmZaretsky, Eli. (2003) Norman O. Brown, 1913-2003 Radical Philosophy, Issue 118.