Theodor W. Adorno

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Theodor W. Adorno
  3. » Theodor W. Adorno

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 12:45 am
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Wed 2 Jul, 2008 06:18 am
@Jazzman phil,
Sounds very interesting. With untrue premises, all the reason in the world will still lead to falsehood. Moral reasoning seems to be done after a decision is already made; we have an emotional reaction, and then devise some logic to support our reaction.

I'd be very interested in some articles on this subject.
 
Jazzman phil
 
Reply Fri 4 Jul, 2008 02:06 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
I found a good passage in the wikipedia article on Adorno:

Quote:
Maybe that's more incisive than my bad english Wink Although I don't really agree with Adorno but I think that his thoughts are considerable for anyone who tries to understand and rate the present.
 
Quesalid
 
Reply Thu 7 Aug, 2008 08:22 pm
@Jazzman phil,
Hi Jazzman,
As part of my thesis, I am researching the applicability of Dialectic of Enlightenment to instances of cultural negotiation of rationalities.

The case I am thinking of is the 1992 Indian mosque disaster. To simplify a very long story: Hindu radicals in India burned down a mosque, claiming that it was built on the site of the birthplace of one of their deities and therefore that a temple should be put there instead. Their belief that the deity was born on that spot is grounded in myth. But in order to make their claim appear legitimate to the modern secular government, they are having to construct scientific/historical arguments through enlightenment logic.

I would be interested to know, do you think that Adorno and Horkheimer's model can be applied to cases such as this, in which "pre-enlightenment" or "pre-disenchantment" societies are are forced to adopt disenchanted enlightenment logic?
 
Fairbanks
 
Reply Sat 1 Nov, 2008 04:05 pm
@Jazzman phil,
Jazzman wrote:
. . . Is someone interested in the Frankfurt School and their critical theory of capitalism?

Smile
For reasons unknown, 300,000 copies of Marcuse's One-Dimensional Man were sold. I suspect that most were not read past the first chapter. That is also the first philosophy book I read (after Hume many years ago). I think that Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse is an excellent place to start researching the nature of the modern state, and I don't classify them as Marxists, but some resemblance in vocabulary is unavoidable. You'll have to read their cites, etc., and will possibly want to follow Derrida and some of that deconstruction criticism or American pragmatism although it gets away from theory of the state in some ways.
 
Quark phil
 
Reply Sat 20 Dec, 2008 01:50 pm
@Fairbanks,
Adorno is mentioned with his thoughts on culture industry. The conception about culture relations in capitalism has gained power inside intellectual socities after his death and it is currently being referred in many sociological discussions.

However, reader cannot understand his statements very clearly, he writes in a complicated way. That is why some people avoid reading him.
 
Fairbanks
 
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 03:15 pm
@Quark phil,
Quark wrote:
he writes in a complicated way.

Smile
Deliberate. Fragmentism is stylish.
 
Jazzman phil
 
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 03:46 pm
@Jazzman phil,
Yes, his language is very difficult, even for german readers, because he used a sort of 19th century language of scholars and wrote mostly in hints. His language is often described as turgid (german "schwuelstig") but I think it's powerful in the first place.
 
Fairbanks
 
Reply Thu 25 Dec, 2008 04:12 pm
@Jazzman phil,
Jazzman wrote:
Yes, his language is very difficult, even for german readers, because he used a sort of 19th century language of scholars and wrote mostly in hints. His language is often described as turgid (german "schwuelstig") but I think it's powerful in the first place.

Smile
I think that he tried to use a musical style, jazzy maybe, in his writing. Music could be an articulate form of expression as much as written language. It would be closely allied with proper beauty as in poetry, that is, not based on concept.
 
Klingsor phil
 
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2009 11:15 am
@Jazzman phil,
Obviously nobody recognizes the irony that "Jazzman" introduces Adorno here, although Adorno never spoke very friendly about jazz (he despised it as "pure entertainment") ... :sarcastic:

I'm just reading Adorno's theory of aesthetic in a critical way. I'm not a fan of the New Music (Schoenberg etc.), but I was interested how Adorno would give reasons for the necessity of avant-garde music.

Adorno says that our musical preferances are only a matter of social habit (I doubt this ...). Because the preferance for harmonical music is a habit of the bourgeois, capitalistic society, this kind of music must be blimpish. So everybody who wants to overcome capitalism must listen to atonal music. A fan of the Beatles must be a reactionist, somebody who wants to be progressiv must be a fan of John Cage.

Well, I'm not convinced, yet ... :whistling:
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sat 26 Dec, 2009 04:23 pm
@Klingsor phil,
Klingsor;114431 wrote:

Adorno says that our musical preferances are only a matter of social habit (I doubt this ...). Because the preferance for harmonical music is a habit of the bourgeois, capitalistic society, this kind of music must be blimpish. So everybody who wants to overcome capitalism must listen to atonal music. A fan of the Beatles must be a reactionist, somebody who wants to be progressiv must be a fan of John Cage.

Well, I'm not convinced, yet ... :whistling:


I'm not convinced either. Adorno seems to have suffered a hipster-spasm.
 
Antoine Roquenti
 
Reply Sun 21 Feb, 2010 05:55 am
@Fairbanks,
Fairbanks;30808 wrote:
Smile
I think that Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse is an excellent place to start researching the nature of the modern state, and I don't classify them as Marxists, but some resemblance in vocabulary is unavoidable.


Both yes and no on your first point. As critcs they are an excellent place to start (alongside with Foucault), as the reader qickly gains sufficient theoretical knowledge and practical(?) insight to use on hers/his own terms. But the drag is that they are all rather dry/hard to read. They write high reaching looooong passages, wich I easily can experience as a de-motivator from time to time.

Beside this, i wouldn't consider them as Marxists either (Marcuse was more of an anarchist, wasn't he? And Foucault most definitely was not). They all exercise extremely critical thinking but this does not necessarily make them Marxists.

---------- Post added 02-21-2010 at 07:05 AM ----------

Klingsor;114431 wrote:

Adorno says that our musical preferances are only a matter of social habit (I doubt this ...). Because the preferance for harmonical music is a habit of the bourgeois, capitalistic society, this kind of music must be blimpish. So everybody who wants to overcome capitalism must listen to atonal music. A fan of the Beatles must be a reactionist, somebody who wants to be progressiv must be a fan of John Cage.

Well, I'm not convinced, yet ... :whistling:


Reconstructo;114476 wrote:
I'm not convinced either. Adorno seems to have suffered a hipster-spasm.


Have any of you listened to the music adorno wrote? If his main purpose was to write unharmonical music to overcome capitalism, he.. well, he achieved very successful in accomplishing the first part of this task..
 
topnotcht121
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 03:32 pm
@Jazzman phil,
I've tried reading dialectic of enlightenment and was overwhelmed by the chapter on the enlightenment. I had a copy of culture industry: the reading, as well, was difficult. How can I absorb all of the criticism of mass media and music in culture industry? I couldnt make use of it in everyday life. Still, I've read what Horkhiemer and Adorno made into critical theory. Its fascinating and true. Media dominance is only reproduction of art ad absurdem.
 
Baal
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 04:21 pm
@Jazzman phil,
I particularly enjoyed Adorno's Dialectic of Enlightenment and it was quite ahead of its time, but honestly the Marxist rhetoric becomes a bit tiring, and much of the thoughts contained therein are expanded upon by later post-structuralists (I am thinking Foucault.. in this own unique way), though perhaps the polemical analysis of the class struggle is true in a way, and is likely neglected by later theorists simply because it sounds "Too Marxist".. nevertheless DofE is a seminal work, Culture Industry is just a popular polemic..
 
topnotcht121
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 04:38 pm
@Baal,
I think that the two were in the same book. I particularly like culture industry because of its criticism of the mass markets.
 
Baal
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 04:49 pm
@Jazzman phil,
D'oh, you are correct, been a while, but the Culture Industry always remains in my head as the 'odd one out' among those essays.
 
topnotcht121
 
Reply Thu 8 Apr, 2010 05:27 pm
@topnotcht121,
But still i know the jury is out on the technisity of the text. I made some reason out of culture industry, where as for the first chapter on enlightenment, I need others opinion. I mean the preface from other text told me of its technisity. Still culture industry is a guiding force for Neo-Capitalist.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Theodor W. Adorno
  3. » Theodor W. Adorno
Copyright © 2014 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/23/2014 at 05:16:19