fascinating article and thanks for working on this theme as i think its really important. but i still think marxism and the marxist approach to culture and culture critique has the best resources for making sense of the development or devolution of culture, not weber but perhaps your focus is on myth. anyway, someone like christopher lasch i think proves this point. the critique of technology makes the most since together with a critique of the capitalist system and its ascendant values.
First and foremost I appreaciate the endorsement. I am focusing on Weber and Auguste Comte because I think their influence is as pervasive as other thinkers and, yet, we do not consider how much power their thought as upon us.
I think that Weber influences people like Heidegger (or my own Austrian School) the same way Popper can be found all over the place influencing the thought of a wide variety of thinkers.
I think that, before we delve into the profound profoundity of someone like Heidegger, before we moralize (which is important) about technology, we need to adress the “elephant in the room” that is Max Weber.
One last point is an admittance on my part: I am biases against marxism. I am biased not because it is evil or revolutionary, it is just that, like many, I have been bombarded with marxism (of a more soft and dull type for sure) all my life and it becomes tiresome to find about every possible subject some academic or journo with the same good ol’combo: Marx, Althusser and, maybe, some other french intellectual (except for any of the french liberals like Raymond Aaron or De Jouvenel). But you are right, marxism is important, and, being quite a revisionist (for good and bad), adressing such a monstrosity of a históricas force is essential.
Either way, the feedback is much appreciated, in Kantian lingo, it is the a priori of improvement.
fascinating article and thanks for working on this theme as i think its really important. but i still think marxism and the marxist approach to culture and culture critique has the best resources for making sense of the development or devolution of culture, not weber but perhaps your focus is on myth. anyway, someone like christopher lasch i think proves this point. the critique of technology makes the most since together with a critique of the capitalist system and its ascendant values.
First and foremost I appreaciate the endorsement. I am focusing on Weber and Auguste Comte because I think their influence is as pervasive as other thinkers and, yet, we do not consider how much power their thought as upon us.
I think that Weber influences people like Heidegger (or my own Austrian School) the same way Popper can be found all over the place influencing the thought of a wide variety of thinkers.
I think that, before we delve into the profound profoundity of someone like Heidegger, before we moralize (which is important) about technology, we need to adress the “elephant in the room” that is Max Weber.
One last point is an admittance on my part: I am biases against marxism. I am biased not because it is evil or revolutionary, it is just that, like many, I have been bombarded with marxism (of a more soft and dull type for sure) all my life and it becomes tiresome to find about every possible subject some academic or journo with the same good ol’combo: Marx, Althusser and, maybe, some other french intellectual (except for any of the french liberals like Raymond Aaron or De Jouvenel). But you are right, marxism is important, and, being quite a revisionist (for good and bad), adressing such a monstrosity of a históricas force is essential.
Either way, the feedback is much appreciated, in Kantian lingo, it is the a priori of improvement.