Eugenics

Smetty - I don't mind Foucault, at least he realized the futility of deconstruction.

Awepittance - while it's true that in North America (Alberta was one of the leaders in eugenics) eugenic policy was practiced, it was hardly widespread, and it is fairly hyperbolic to say that as a nation America revered Hitler's Germany.

  On 11/29/2010 at 11:24 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

Adorno?

 

I'd have to reacquaint myself with his works before I make any solid critiques, but off the top of my head, what does he consider technology? Seems there would be a disconnect between his social theory/Weberian/Marxist critique works and his theories on aesthetics.

 

2nd edit:

 

Also, having never read any of his analysis on music or art in general, is music or art to him completely, or rather, capable of separation from the repression of popular culture? Or is it undeniably and irreversibly attached to it?

I was merely searching for an excuse to post that picture

Speaking of technology though, they basically see it as the fundamental tool of enlightenment/reason to gain control over nature and thus gain control over mainkind as the quote suggest. And this is basically seen as an autonomous social process (all marx-style). So especially in regards to Weber and others they directly link it to that harsh critique on positivism, as positivism is said to blindly justify/glorify and heat technological progress (while also being enlightenments direct child of course).

In regards to Adornos aesthetical theory...i'm not really familiar with it, he does seem to acknowledge some "true" works of art though which are detached from repression by reason. Actually true art appears to be seen as one of the very few points of refuge from the allembracing violence. But I'm not so sure though if he did find any (then) contemporary art to be pure and good, as he more or less regarded everything to be unter the totalitarian rule of the culture industry (?). edit: as i already mentioned though, i dont really know anything about his aesthetics beyond "culture industry"

  On 11/29/2010 at 11:50 PM, dese manz hatin said:

  On 11/29/2010 at 11:24 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

Adorno?

 

I'd have to reacquaint myself with his works before I make any solid critiques, but off the top of my head, what does he consider technology? Seems there would be a disconnect between his social theory/Weberian/Marxist critique works and his theories on aesthetics.

 

2nd edit:

 

Also, having never read any of his analysis on music or art in general, is music or art to him completely, or rather, capable of separation from the repression of popular culture? Or is it undeniably and irreversibly attached to it?

I was merely searching for an excuse to post that picture

 

Speaking of technology though, they basically see it as the fundamental tool of enlightenment/reason to gain control over nature and thus gain control over mainkind as the quote suggest. And this is basically seen as an autonomous social process (all marx-style). So especially in regards to Weber and others they directly link it to that harsh critique on positivism, as positivism is said to blindly justify/glorify and heat technological progress (while also being enlightenments direct child of course).

In regards to Adornos aesthetical theory...i'm not really familiar with it, he does seem to acknowledge some "true" works of art though which are detached from repression by reason. Actually true art appears to be seen as one of the very few points of refuge from the allembracing violence. But I'm not so sure though if he did find any (then) contemporary art to be pure and good, as he more or less regarded everything to be unter the totalitarian rule of the culture industry (?). edit: as i already mentioned though, i dont really know anything about his aesthetics beyond "culture industry"

thanks for the well-thought out response. I always thought though that Adorno regarded jazz as having the possibility in terms of his structural elements as pure art, or at least can become pure art.

I'm assuming you are pulling all of this from Dialectic of Enlightenment? Fantastic book, and I need to give it a reread, but for some reason I thought one of their biggest gripes with modern society is that what was initially positivism in the Enlightenment era has now ironically twisted itself into a negativism, in that no further advancements of concepts of technology can exist beyond the limits and borders imposed by Enlightenment ideals....i think they even say at some point this is the ultimate realization of "enlightenment": complete regression into the myth/legend of positivist thought as an imposed reality. (Hence Nazi Germany).....though its been a while so I might be way off on this...Im pulling some of my thoughts from Heidegger as well.

edit: i dont mean "negativism", rather anti-positivist, or limitations created by positivist thinking in the capitalist age.

  On 11/29/2010 at 11:31 PM, chenGOD said:

Smetty - I don't mind Foucault, at least he realized the futility of deconstruction.

 

Awepittance - while it's true that in North America (Alberta was one of the leaders in eugenics) eugenic policy was practiced, it was hardly widespread, and it is fairly hyperbolic to say that as a nation America revered Hitler's Germany.

I personally find Foucault to be one of the most entertaining and rewarding 20th Century philosophers (though he would hate me for calling him a philosopher).....I think he ends up like Nietzsche in that people misinterpret his works as the end of a projected goal, when in fact he often stated in interviews and the book introductions themselves that he hasn't necessarily reached a finite and definite conclusion, rather his works should be used more as "toolboxes" for the various academic realms of study.

Also, I apologize in advance for derailing this thread.

  On 11/29/2010 at 11:31 PM, chenGOD said:

Smetty - I don't mind Foucault, at least he realized the futility of deconstruction.

 

Awepittance - while it's true that in North America (Alberta was one of the leaders in eugenics) eugenic policy was practiced, it was hardly widespread, and it is fairly hyperbolic to say that as a nation America revered Hitler's Germany.

 

well it (the belief in selective breeding) was widespread at one point enough to be law in the united states. there is even a famous movie that is basically a reaction/ commentary on the draconian eugenics laws for the time. The story is of a woman who's family lineage was deemed too 'feeble minded' to be legally allowed to procreate. I've been trying to google it for the past hour and found nothing. When i do find it ill post some clips.

and to respond to your second point, it wasn't so much the working class Americans that revered Hitler, it was an admiration that was widespread among financial elites and industrialists of the time. I'll find some evidence to back up these claims in a little bit

found -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3B-GUEvc-c&feature=player_embedded#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDIQi0iws7Y&feature=related

  On 11/30/2010 at 12:02 AM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

  On 11/29/2010 at 11:50 PM, dese manz hatin said:

  On 11/29/2010 at 11:24 PM, Smettingham Rutherford IV said:

Adorno?

 

I'd have to reacquaint myself with his works before I make any solid critiques, but off the top of my head, what does he consider technology? Seems there would be a disconnect between his social theory/Weberian/Marxist critique works and his theories on aesthetics.

 

2nd edit:

 

Also, having never read any of his analysis on music or art in general, is music or art to him completely, or rather, capable of separation from the repression of popular culture? Or is it undeniably and irreversibly attached to it?

I was merely searching for an excuse to post that picture

 

Speaking of technology though, they basically see it as the fundamental tool of enlightenment/reason to gain control over nature and thus gain control over mainkind as the quote suggest. And this is basically seen as an autonomous social process (all marx-style). So especially in regards to Weber and others they directly link it to that harsh critique on positivism, as positivism is said to blindly justify/glorify and heat technological progress (while also being enlightenments direct child of course).

In regards to Adornos aesthetical theory...i'm not really familiar with it, he does seem to acknowledge some "true" works of art though which are detached from repression by reason. Actually true art appears to be seen as one of the very few points of refuge from the allembracing violence. But I'm not so sure though if he did find any (then) contemporary art to be pure and good, as he more or less regarded everything to be unter the totalitarian rule of the culture industry (?). edit: as i already mentioned though, i dont really know anything about his aesthetics beyond "culture industry"

 

thanks for the well-thought out response. I always thought though that Adorno regarded jazz as having the possibility in terms of his structural elements as pure art, or at least can become pure art.

 

I'm assuming you are pulling all of this from Dialectic of Enlightenment? Fantastic book, and I need to give it a reread, but for some reason I thought one of their biggest gripes with modern society is that what was initially positivism in the Enlightenment era has now ironically twisted itself into a negativism, in that no further advancements of concepts of technology can exist beyond the limits and borders imposed by Enlightenment ideals....i think they even say at some point this is the ultimate realization of "enlightenment": complete regression into the myth/legend of positivist thought as an imposed reality. (Hence Nazi Germany).....though its been a while so I might be way off on this...Im pulling some of my thoughts from Heidegger as well.

 

edit: i dont mean "negativism", rather anti-positivist, or limitations created by positivist thinking in the capitalist age.

yeah exactly....enlightenment becomes myth again and basically negates itself (together with positivism etc) in the process.

and youre right, this is all mostly from dialectic of enlightenment...really one of the most important and astonishing books of the 20th century imho.

  On 11/29/2010 at 9:22 PM, ET said:

all of the elitists are die hard eugenicists. they want a world run by themselves and only themselves, where 95% of all people have been eliminated, and the remaining few are enslaved like animals

 

in order to do this, they first need to set up a systematic method to eliminate everyone. if they began now, outrage from the people would stop them, and they know this. so, they decided to set a global government, an international body that oversees the policies, military, and economics of all countries. once this is set up, they are free to do what they want with all of us. and with their new found power, second to none, they will begin the depopulation, probably with weaponized viruses and economic sanctions and manipulations, or they also may trigger cataclysmic disasters, or start large scale wars, if not all of these things and more

 

what your seeing now in the airports is the future of mankinds "free" society. the future is incredibly technical and computerized, theyve been telling us that since weve been kids. what they didnt tell us though, is that this futuristic world of computerism, is going to be used to control, monitor, and enslave us

 

so eugenics is basically the death of you, everyone you know and love, and your fellow man. dont fall for this modern day outlook of eugenics, where they try to sell you a pretty version of it, where everyone is ultra intelligent and working towards the betterment of mankind. it doesnt work like that, theyve used psychology and sociology to socially engineer our once free society, into an orwellian nightmare of death

 

these are unruly, sick, sick, people, that make adolf hitler look like jesus christ

ET, began to wonder whether you'd lost your minerals and marbles. this proves otherwise!

each and every one of us has a number that was given to us at birth. this is our tracking number, our barcode. fact.

we are being profiled and programmed. we are being bred, bottle fed, and fattened and if we don't break free soon we'll eventually be sold for slaughter.

  On 11/30/2010 at 12:37 AM, Awepittance said:

  On 11/29/2010 at 11:31 PM, chenGOD said:

 

Awepittance - while it's true that in North America (Alberta was one of the leaders in eugenics) eugenic policy was practiced, it was hardly widespread, and it is fairly hyperbolic to say that as a nation America revered Hitler's Germany.

 

 

well it (the belief in selective breeding) was widespread at one point enough to be law in the united states. there is even a famous movie that is basically a reaction/ commentary on the draconian eugenics laws for the time. The story is of a woman who's family lineage was deemed too 'feeble minded' to be legally allowed to procreate. I've been trying to google it for the past hour and found nothing. When i do find it ill post some clips.

 

and to respond to your second point, it wasn't so much the working class Americans that revered Hitler, it was an admiration that was widespread among financial elites and industrialists of the time. I'll find some evidence to back up these claims in a little bit

The number of people sterilized was

Sure there were people in the elite who revered Hitler, there was also a significant proportion who were opposed to him (otherwise it would have been difficult to gain support to go to war in Europe).

there is a lot of garbage in this thread. when is garbage day?

Fuck eugenics.

Eugenics is the branch of philosophy started by watmm's eugene, right?

lol's

  On 11/29/2010 at 8:02 PM, Hoodie said:

the problem with eugenics is that even smart, attractive people can have absolutely awful children, so the next generation after the murder machines have been deployed will pretty much return the population to normal levels of smart/dumb. also, killing people based on "intelligence" quickly turns into "lol let's kill poor people". i mean, generally, killing large groups of people based on generalizations is frowned upon, so let's not do that.

yeah, i will basically agree with this

  On 11/29/2010 at 11:05 PM, Awepittance said:

while i completely agree with abortion being legal and people's right to use birth control, it can't be denied that some of the biggest proponents of them early in the 20th century were Eugenicist thinkers who wanted them to prevent more 'feeble minded' people from procreating.

I feel this way too. I abhor any lawmakers or activists who support legal restrictions or bans on birth control and abortion. I mean, my home state has thousands of children born into poverty and broken homes and we seriously had a bill two years ago that would of forced any woman getting an abortion to veiw a ultrasound of the fetus. Thankfully it failed.

It's frustrating living in a country the youngest couples having kids are either:

a. the kind of people who are on MTV's "16 and pregnant"

b. religious fundamentalists who want to have as many offspring of their narrow-minded viewpoint as possible

The problem with this country isn't the possibility of government supported eugenics movement, but laws preventing people from using contraceptives. Maybe I've watched Idiocracy too many times, I dunno.

  On 11/30/2010 at 6:57 AM, vproc said:

Fuck eugenics.

 

Eugenics is the branch of philosophy started by watmm's eugene, right?

Yeah, that's what i've always been saying but nobody has been listening so far. It's obvious that Eugene is a nazi. But please, let's not forget ~ism.

i think iuds should be more highly publicized. you'd be surprised how many people have no idea what they are and instead use shitty hormone birth control that is not 100% effective and ends up polluting our water supplies.

So own up, which one of you is the spawn of Hitler?