Página inicial > Filosofia da Ciência e da Técnica > Marcuse (ODM:C6) – uma ciência sem domínio?

One-dimensional man

Marcuse (ODM:C6) – uma ciência sem domínio?

6. From Negative to Positive Thinking: Technological Rationality and the Logic of Domination

segunda-feira 1º de novembro de 2021

MARCUSE  , Herbert. One-dimensional man : studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society. Massachusetts: Beacon Press, 1964 (ebook)

tradução parcial

O que estou tentando mostrar é que a ciência?, por causa do seu método? e de seus conceitos?, projetou um universo? no qual o domínio? da natureza? ficou ligado ao domínio do homem? e que ela favoreceu esse? universo — e esse traço de união? tende a tornar-se fatal para esse universo em seu conjunto. A natureza, apreendida e controlada pela ciência, ainda está presente? no aparelho técnico? de produção? e de destruição que garante e facilita a vida? dos indivíduos? e que, ao mesmo? tempo?, submete-os aos donos do aparelho. Assim, a hierarquia? da Razão? e a hierarquia da sociedade? se interpenetram. Deste modo?, se havia uma mudança? no sentido? do progresso? que romperia o laço entre a racionalidade? da técnica e aquela da exploração, haveria igualmente uma mudança na própria estrutura? da ciência — no projeto? científico. As hipóteses? da ciência, sem perder seu caráter? racional, desenvolver?-se-iam num contexto experimental? essencialmente? diferente (o de um mundo? pacificado) e, por conseguinte, a ciência iria dar em conceitos da natureza essencialmente diferentes, estabeleceria fatos? essencialmente diferentes. Uma sociedade realmente racional subverteria a ideia? de Razão.

original

No matter? how one defines truth? and objectivity?, they remain related to the human agents of theory? and practice, and to their ability to comprehend and change their world. This ability in turn depends on the extent to which matter (whatever it may be) is recognized and understood as that which it is itself in all particular? forms?. In these terms, contemporary science is of immensely greater objective? validity than its predecessors. One might even add that, at present, the scientific method is the only method that can claim such validity; the interplay of hypotheses and observable facts validates the hypotheses and establishes the facts. The point? which I am? trying to make? is that science, by virtue of its own method and concepts, has projected and promoted a universe in which the domination of nature has remained linked to the domination of man—a link which tends to be fatal to this universe as a whole. Nature, scientifically comprehended and mastered, reappears in the technical apparatus of production and destruction which sustains and improves the life of the individuals while subordinating them to the masters of the apparatus. Thus the rational hierarchy merges with the social? one. If this is the case, then the change in the direction of progress, which might sever this fatal link, would also affect? the very structure of science—the scientific project. Its hypotheses, without losing their rational character?, would develop in an essentially different experimental context (that of a pacified world); consequently, science would arrive at essentially different concepts of nature and establish essentially different facts. The rational society subverts the idea? of Reason.

I have pointed out that the elements of this subversion, the notions of another rationality, were present in the history? of thought? from its beginning?. The ancient idea of a state where Being? attains fulfillment, where the tension between “is” and “ought” is resolved in the cycle? of an eternal return, partakes of the metaphysics? of domination. But it also pertains to the metaphysics of liberation—to the reconciliation of Logos? and Eros?. This idea envisages the coming-to-rest of the repressive productivity of Reason, the end? of domination in gratification.

The two contrasting rationalities cannot simply be correlated with classical and modern? thought respectively, as in John Dewey’s formulation? “from contemplative enjoyment to active manipulation and control”; and “from knowing? as an esthetic enjoyment of the properties of nature … to knowing as a means of secular? control.”27 Classical thought was sufficiently committed to the logic of secular control, and there is a sufficient component of indictment and refusal in modern thought to vitiate John Dewey’s formulation. Reason, as conceptual thought and behavior, is necessarily mastery, domination. Logos is law?, rule, order? by virtue of knowledge. In subsuming particular cases under a universal?, in subjecting it to their universal, thought attains mastery over the particular cases. It becomes capable not only of comprehending but also of acting upon them, controlling them. However, while all thought stands under the rule of logic, the unfolding of this logic is different in the various modes of thought. Classical formal? and modern symbolic? logic, transcendental? and dialectical? logic—each rules over a different universe of discourse? and experience. They all developed within the historical continuum of domination to which they pay tribute. And this continuum bestows upon the modes of positive thinking their conformist and ideological character; upon those of negative thinking their speculative and utopian character.


Ver online : One-dimensional man