One of the most important texts of modern times, Herbert Marcuse's analysis and image of a one-dimensional man in a one-dimensional society has shaped many young radicals' way of seeing and experiencing life. Published in 1964, it fast became an ideological bible for the emergent New Left. As Douglas Kellner notes in his introduction, Marcuse's greatest work was a 'damning indictment of contemporary Western societies, capitalist and communist.' Yet it also expressed the hopes of a radical philosopher that human (...) freedom and happiness could be greatly expanded beyond the regimented thought and behaviour prevalent in established society. For those who held the reigns of power Marcuse's call to arms threatened civilization to its very core. For many others however, it represented a freedom hitherto unimaginable. (shrink)

What can reason do for us and what can't it do? This is the question examined by Herbert A. Simon, who received the 1978 Nobel Prize in Economic Sciences "for his pioneering work on decision-making processes in economic organizations." The ability to apply reason to the choice of actions is supposed to be one of the defining characteristics of our species. In the first two chapters, the author explores the nature and limits of human reason, comparing and evaluating the (...) major theoretical frameworks that have been erected to explain reasoning processes. He also discusses the interaction of thinking and emotion in the choice of our actions. In the third and final chapter, the author applies the theory of bounded rationality to social institutions and human behavior, and points out the problems created by limited attention span human inability to deal with more than one difficult problem at a time. He concludes that we must recognize the limitations on our capabilities for rational choice and pursue goals that, in their tentativeness and flexibility, are compatible with those limits. (shrink)

L’auteur cherche, au moyen d’une analyse de la théorie totalitaire de l’État et de la société, à décrire les fonctions idéologiques de cette conception. Après avoir esquissé les différentes sources de cette théorie et le développement économique qui a précédé l’état autoritaire total qu’elle préconise, il expose ses principaux éléments : l’universalisme, l’organicisme, le „réalisme héroïque44 et l’existencialisme politique (Carl Schmitt). Cette théorie combat le libéralisme comme son grand adversaire. On voit toutefois nettement que son anti-libéralisme cache sa position effective (...) dans la situation actuelle : les bases économiques du libéralisme subsistent comme telles et ne sont qu’adaptées aux nécessités nouvelles de la société monopolo- capitaliste ; l’état autoritaire total organise la société sans modifier sa base d’une manière décisive ; il n’est qu’une auto-transformation de l’état libéral. La théorie de l’état autoritaire total n’est toutefois pas uniquement le résultat d’une manoeuvre idéologique. Par l’état autoritaire et par les pensées qu’il suscite dans un but propagandiste, se développent des forces qui dépassent ses propres formes politiques et tendent vers un autre état de choses.The author attempts by means of an interpretation of the historical and social theory of the totalitarian state to demonstrate its social functions. After sketching the various sources of the new world-outlook and of the economic developments preceding the totalitarian state, the author presents the main points of his analysis : popular universalism, irrational orga- nicism, „heroic realism44 and political existencialism (Carl Schmitt). Liberalism is the great antagonist of this political and social theory. It is clear, however, that the anti-liberalism of the latter conceals the actual attitude in the present situation ; the economic foundations of liberalism remain as they were and are merely adapted to the changed needs of the monopolistic capitalistic society. The totalitarian state organizes society without any real change in its basis ; it is only a self-transformation of the libera- listic state. The totalitarian state is however not merely an ideological adaptation. The dialectics of an historical process emerge within it, and unchain forces which point to something beyond the political forms by which the totalitarian state stabilises social conditions. (shrink)

I discuss, in the first part, Chisholm's definition of the self-presenting. I argue that the psychological pre-conditions that Chisholm imposes on his epistemic notions cause difficulties for the definition and suggest that there may be a further difficulty when one considers the definition in the light of what Chisholm says about the KK principle. I try, in the second part, to elucidate the relation that a person has to propositions that are self-presenting to him, and I consider Chisholm's views on (...) the same matter. (shrink)

|347| Introduction À titre provisoire, commençons par déterminer l’objet de notre enquête, en le prenant tel qu’il nous est donné. Le matérialisme historique intervient dans le contexte gnoséologique du marxisme ; or ce dernier n’apparaît pas comme une théorie scientifique, comme un système de vérités dont le sens résiderait uniquement dans leur exactitude en tant que connaissances, mais comme une théorie de l’agir social, de l’acte historique. Le marxisme est la théorie de la révolution prol...

Sidney Lipshires, a Marxist scholar, considered Marcuse’s shift “from Marx to Freud” problematic. Marcuse’s legitimate criticism of the conformist/adjustment elements of psychoanalytical practice seemed to Lipshires to require a recognition of theoretical weakness in Freud’s philosophical metapsychology, but this is in fact what Marcuse admires most—as explained in Eros and Civilization. Marcuse responds that Freud’s mythological material serves to recall the possibility of a nonrepressive culture! The anthropological research of Margaret Mead operates likewise. Marcuse steadfastly regards practice as political praxis, (...) aiming at changing society as a whole, and says that Mead’s work and Freud’s work has helped him bring social theory back to Marx. (shrink)