Talk:Herbert Marcuse

Marcuse Wanted to Integrate both Eros and Logos

This needs to be known2601:447:4101:41F9:7827:E592:4B47:AAD1 (talk) 16:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

FreeKnowledgeCreator, please stop erasing Marcuse's own words.2601:447:4101:41F9:595D:1EFC:BE67:64B5 (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid there no excuse for covering up what Marcuse wrote and what he believed.68.47.65.239 (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Stop making additions such as "Eros had to integrate with Logos in order to strive". They are worthless and do nothing to help explain Marcuse's ideas. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is what he believed. If you don't like it, too bad. I even sourced his own book Eros and Civilization.68.47.65.239 (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It exists to convey meaningful, factual information to readers. Including a statement such as "Eros had to integrate with Logos in order to strive" is completely useless to readers because no one knows what it means. Even if Marcuse did believe that, Wikipedia is under no obligation to include it. It is not necessary, appropriate, or even possible for an article about a philosopher to list every single thing he may have believed; we summarize the most important points only. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, Wikipedia is an encylopedia. And as an encyclopedia, it needs to mention what Marcuse believed and what he wrote. The most important points are that he thought Eros and Logos needed to integrate to build society and that his philosophy was built around this assumption. You are quite right that they need be summarized, so quit contradicting your own words and let them be summarized.2601:447:4101:41F9:1C38:F501:2E85:F7A7 (talk) 11:07, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The article needs to mention some of what Marcuse believed and what he wrote. Per WP:PROPORTION: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." Do you have a reliable source stating that the "most important points are that he thought Eros and Logos needed to integrate to build society and that his philosophy was built around this assumption"? I accept that you are trying to improve the article, but you are frankly doing a poor job of it. Not only have you not provided evidence that the ideas you want to mention are among the most important, you have not even tried to respond to the point that a statement such as "To Marcuse, Eros had to integrate with Logos in order to strive" will be completely meaningless to most readers. Perhaps you could suggest a rewritten version that would actually convey some meaningful and useful information? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:51, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Aspects were not minor and were the core of his philosophy. Therefore, you can't use the WP:PROPORTION against me. My edits also contain very reliable academic sources, such as Stanford University. I even included his own book Eros and Civilization as one of my sources.2601:447:4101:41F9:1C38:F501:2E85:F7A7 (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and your assertions about what aspects of Marcuse's ideas are most important do not carry any weight here. Discussion here is not a one-sided process whereby you make claims, other people have to accept them, and that's the end of it. You need to back up your claims about the importance of the material you added with reliable sources; if you cannot, they are irrelevant. You have persistently ignored the point that your additions will be largely or entirely meaningless to most readers. Again, I suggest that you confront the issue or propose a suitably reworded version. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Not an assertion at all. Even Stanford backed. You need to quit living in fantasy land and join the real world.2601:447:4101:41F9:3C4D:17D2:E221:7A4A (talk) 00:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Your comment above, "Aspects were not minor and were the core of his philosophy", was an assertion and was backed by no evidence. Your mention of "Stanford" is presumably a reference to this article. It does not mention that Marcuse believed that "Eros had to integrate with Logos in order to strive", explain what that ungrammatical statement means, or suggest any importance to it whatever. Endlessly repeating that "Eros had to integrate with Logos in order to strive" is a properly written statement will never make that true. Whatever it is intended to mean, it is of no use whatever to readers. "He viewed the integration of Eros and Logos to be the liberation of society" is almost equally as unclear. The expression "the liberation of society" is neither clear in meaning nor neutral. The last of your additions reads, "Marcuse also believed that Logos was superior to Eros and would eventually absorb it"; that, too, is quite unclear in the absence of any explanation of what it means. You have cited it to Eros and Civilization, but it is not clear how the citation supports the statement so it appears to an original research use of the source, presenting your views rather than Marcuse's. One source you provided, Javier Sethness Castro's book Eros and Revolution: The Critical Philosophy of Herbert Marcuse, does support the statement that the categories of Marcuse's political philosophy principally involve the concepts of Logos and Eros; it would be appropriate to add some statement to that effect to the article. You need to stop making childish comments such as, "You need to quit living in fantasy land and join the real world", because they violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. If you keep making them they will get you blocked. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:50, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

3O Response: Wikipedia summarizes notable information about the subject, as reported in reliable secondary sources. Marcuse's own book is suitable to cite a quotation, but it is a primary source and doesn't itself establish notability. There should be a reliable secondary source to show that this is notable and important enough to be included. It would be helpful to use the |quote= parameter (and/or |page= for a page number) in the citation template to make this explicit (particularly when the source is long). Without this, it does look like original research. Additionally, if it is decided to summarize this information, I feel it could be phrased in a way that would be more understandable to the reader. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:16, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I accept that the IP editor is trying in good faith to improve the article, and some of the sources the IP has produced do seem helpful and could be used to improve the article. However, there are major problems both with the IP's approach to editing and with the material the IP has added. That includes problems with the comprehensibility of the material, which is of either little use or no use in its current form, and problems with original research. An example is the statement, "Marcuse also believed that Logos was superior to Eros and would eventually absorb it". It would be reasonable to summarize Marcuse's ideas that way if Marcuse had actually written something such as, "Logos is superior to Eros and will eventually absorb it." Anyone can see by looking at the citation provided for that assertion that Marcuse did not actually write that "Logos is superior to Eros and will eventually absorb it"; that solely represents the IP editor's interpretation of Marcuse. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

He described perfectly well in Eros and Civilization, which I sourced.2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA (talk) 02:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Even on page 126 He notes how Logos will absorb Eros in his eyes.[1].2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA (talk) 02:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOR. It makes it clear that even if article content is cited, it can still be original research, if you have placed an original interpretation on a source. That's what you've done here with the "Logos is superior to Eros and will eventually absorb it" line. Marcuse doesn't say that. Your comment "He described perfectly well in Eros and Civilization, which I sourced" doesn't address this. It is just a confused comment; it isn't even grammatical. As for the source you provide above, it discusses Marcuse, but again it does not state that Marcuse believed that "Logos is superior to Eros and will eventually absorb it"; that is an interpretation you are placing on it. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid Marcuse does say that. Here is another copy of his book.[2] I suggest you read pages 125 to 126.2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid Wikipedia is a collaborative project and that you cannot force content into this article over the objections of other editors. Insisting that you are right and expecting other people to automatically agree with you will accomplish absolutely nothing. Multiple editors now have told you that there are problems with what you have been doing. You need to take that into account and change your approach. The source you provided above contains none of the actual text of Eros and Civilization, so of course it is useless to other editors. The passage in the book that comes the closest to your text is this on page 126: "Eros is being absorbed into Logos, and Logos is reason which subdues the instincts." I suppose that is the source of your text about Logos absorbing Eros and being superior to it. It does not even represent Marcuse's views, as you seem to think. Marcuse is discussing the views other philosophers such as Plato, not stating that in his view Logos is "superior" to Eros and will eventually absorb it, which is your bizarre interpretation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you need to cooperate.2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I have cooperated, by seeking a third opinion, by considering what you have to say, and by looking up the sources you have provided. If by "you need to cooperate", what you really mean is, "you need to agree with me", then no, I don't need to do that. If you cannot make meaningful responses to criticisms of the edits you have made and the content you have added, then you are going to accomplish nothing here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

No, you are not cooperating and need to agree with what the words of Marcuse were. I'm afraid your talk is getting you nowhere fast2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA (talk) 02:38, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You added content to the article based on your interpretation of Eros and Civilization. You were told that what you added was both incorrect and represented an original research interpretation of the source. A relevant response would have been to try to show that your added content was correct and not original research. Saying that I "need to agree with what the words of Marcuse were" is simply drivel. If you keep on making such responses, it will show, to me and to others, that you cannot defend your additions rationally. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You're making me laugh. I'm afraid your interpretation is only art and not science.2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm not going to respond to rubbish, incivility, or illogical and unsupported statements. Keep your comments relevant or they can potentially be removed from the talk page. I see that with this edit you have modified the text you added, so that it now reads, "Marcuse defended Plato's argument that while Eros was constructive, Logos was superior and would eventually absorb it". That's still original research and it does not even describe what Marcuse is doing accurately. He does not refer to any "argument" by Plato or try to defend it; nor does he state that Logos is somehow "superior" to Eros, which again is nonsense. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Yes it make sense. It's even what you were willing to acknowledge when edit the Eros and Civilization article.2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You write, "It's even what you were willing to acknowledge when edit the Eros and Civilization article". Sorry, what are you talking about? Your comment is ungrammatical and hard to make sense of. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:54, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I couldn't even proofread that typo because you made your comment. Your ranting makes me laugh too hard and it's hard to me to pay attention to what I write.2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2018 (UTC) Oops made another typo.2601:447:4101:41F9:529:DCBA:F533:B7FA (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I have not ranted. I have pointed out the problems with your edits, including the addition of material of questionable importance, the addition of material that is borderline incomprehensible, and your misunderstanding of the sources you have used, such as Marcuse's book Eros and Civilization, directly and rather bluntly. You failed to make any meaningful response to this. Again I thank you for trying to improve the article; some of the sources you have used may prove helpful. However, you need to change your approach; you just can't go on making the same edits and refusing to recognize the problems with them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

You added a paragraph that reads as follows,

"Much of Marcuse's philosophy was centered around the belief that Eros had to integrate with Logos in order to strive. Marcuse defended Plato's argument that while Eros was constructive, Logos was superior and would eventually absorb it. In One Dimensional Man, he argued that Logos would also liberate's one's gratification."

The first sentence of that is meaningless to me and I'm sure to most readers as well. The second sentence is a garbled and inaccurate account of Marcuse's ideas as presented in Eros and Civilization. The third sentence is sub-standard English and nearly as meaningless as the first sentence. If the problems with that paragraph were minor, then I would try to rewrite it rather than remove it entirely, but it suffers from such major problems I can't think of any valid approach but to remove it altogether. If you want to propose a rewritten or modified version of that paragraph, expressing things in better language, I'm prepared to consider it on its merits. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 11:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

By the way, you also need to stop using weird or inappropriate edit summaries ("Had to accept"), as you did here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 12:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Still laughing. I'm afraid it is not your duty to dictate what is included. I now even sourced a One Dimensional Man snippet from his website.2601:447:4101:41F9:E469:5CBF:1851:1D18 (talk) 12:04, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

The problems with your edits are not just a matter of my opinion. You have had two users now, myself and Reidgreg, tell you that there are major problems with them. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 12:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid the NOR policy refers to unreliable sources. These sources are far from unreliable.2601:447:4101:41F9:E469:5CBF:1851:1D18 (talk) 12:45, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

No. WP:NOR deals with all sources and the way they are used. Even if you cite a reliable source, you can still engage in original research if you place an original interpretation on the source. To quote the policy: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". I also direct your attention to the part of the policy stating, "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source." Your addition, "Marcuse defended Plato's argument that while Eros was constructive, Logos was superior and would eventually absorb it" is original research in that it places a totally novel interpretation on Eros and Civilization. It is also an incorrect interpretation. The source simply does not say what you claim it does. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's what exactly what I typed. It has to do with reliable sources with wording which backs the claim, so think that you can attempt to con me further without bringing me more laughter. What is written in your eyes isn't what was written in Eros and Civilization and One Dimensional Man.2601:447:4101:41F9:CEB:66CF:3DE9:A6B7 (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

What you wrote was, "the NOR policy refers to unreliable sources". That is incorrect, as I explained; the policy concerns all sources. I am familiar with Eros and Civilization, I have re-read the pages that you cited the statement "Marcuse defended Plato's argument that while Eros was constructive, Logos was superior and would eventually absorb it" to, and is perfectly clear that your addition is wrong and misrepresents the book completely. I am familiar with Plato as well, for that matter. Plato did not argue that while Eros is constructive Logos is superior and will eventually absorb it, and nor does Marcuse say he did. Your addition is frankly nonsense. If you seriously think your addition is accurate, and believe that Plato did argue that while Eros is constructive, Logos is superior and will eventually absorb it, then by all means explain in which of his works Plato argued that, explain what argument he used, and explain how Marcuse defended that supposed argument. You can't do it, because nothing in Eros and Civilization, or Plato, supports you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Read the policy for yourself. It does indeed refer to unreliable resources. Not even the NOR article supports your fantasies.2601:447:4101:41F9:CEB:66CF:3DE9:A6B7 (talk) 02:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You do not know what you are talking about. Read WP:NOR yourself, especially the part stating, "Drawing conclusions not evident in the reference is original research regardless of the type of source." The "regardless of the type of source" part indicates that it refers to all sources, including reliable sources. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 02:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Already have. Don't bother to source it some more without laughter, because it sure discusses unreliable resources and the wording of reliable resources.2601:447:4101:41F9:CEB:66CF:3DE9:A6B7 (talk) 02:09, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The important point is that you added content that draws conclusions "not evident in the reference" and that this added content is thus original research and needs to be removed. I have started a discussion about your additions here. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The IP is behaving in a disruptive manner here. There is a clear WP:REFUSALTOGETTHEPOINT. If they persist, I think it likely that administrators might see fit to impose a ban on them editing this particular article. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

The problem is ongoing. See here. The text added included, "However, he also wrote in Eros and Civilization that Eros had become "archaic mystical residue as early as Plato and that over time, Logos will likely absorb Eros." The first part of that is vague but not altogether wrong. The second part, "Logos will likely absorb Eros", is outright misinterpretation of Marcuse, apparently based on taking literally and out of context a piece of evocative language that was never meant to be understood in the way that IP suggests. I have pointed this out at Talk:Eros_and_Civilization#Misinterpretation_of_primary_source. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Why does Wikipedia's Powers That Be put up with nonsense like this? FreeKnowledgeCreator seems to be acting precisely like a troll. Actio (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I removed obviously poor-quality edits and I see no reason to apologize for doing so. I am happy to keep the article free from semi-literate garbage. You are not accomplishing anything by insulting me. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

people influenced by HM

There is no evidence that Kathy Acker was influenced by Herbert Marcuse. Or cite it here? Actio (talk) 22:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing to prevent you from removing such uncited material yourself. Although you gratuitously and pointlessly insulted me above, I will nevertheless perform the edit for you and remove the reference to Acker. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 10:49, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Possible error in the article

The article says Marx criticized the young Hegelians, but he was a member of them and criticized the old Hegelians. Rationaltail (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

He was the most radical outgrowth of the Young Hegelians. The Young Hegelians for the most part focused on criticism of religion, Marx was the one who shifted the focus to the "material", which is basically Marxist jargon for economic and capital factors. Marx *also* criticized the Old Hegelians but that doesn't mean he didn't criticize the Young Hegelians who were less radical than he was. It's not a contradiction at all.192.53.95.1 (talk) 20:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Kołakowski

Citing Kołakowski to describe Marcuse's views is like citing Ann Coulter to describe the views of Rachel Maddow, or the other way around. This is incompatible with NPOV.--79.100.149.219 (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC) Also, Leszek Kołakowski description of Marcuse's views as 'essentially anti-Marxist' is presented under the section 'Criticism'. However, coming from Kołakowski, this particular description is not critical, since Kołakowski himself is a vehement anti-Marxist.--79.100.149.219 (talk) 18:39, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Stanford Encyclopedia

@Newimpartial @Janelleclancy I have no position on the disputed text, but Stanford Encyclopedia of Philopsohpy is not WP:USERGENERATED. See their editorial policy [3] Sennalen (talk) 20:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, points 5 and 6 of that policy certainly differ from standard peer-review procedures. I am not at all convinced that the resulting regime is in any way equivalent to normal editorial responsibility, in spite of notional control by the Principal Editor. Newimpartial (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is top-tier as far as encyclopedias go. The authors are typically well regarded experts in their fields. Speaking as someone who's written articles for academic encyclopedias, I can tell you that the editorial oversight is typically pretty minimal. SEP does a better job of it than most, and the articles are updated periodically. That doesn't mean that everything they publish should automatically be considered the consensus view among scholars, but it's a solid WP:TERTIARY source as far as they go. Newimpartial is still correct that rigorously peer-reviewed WP:SECONDARY sources are preferable as a basis for article content, but tertiary sources like the SEP can be useful for assessing WP:DUE weight. Generalrelative (talk) 07:19, 15 March 2023 (UTC)