Hi there, welcome to the forums! What's your favourite part about Hegel, Arendt and Adorno?

Dear Mr. Emerita,

Can I begin by mentioning that I'm a big fan of that thing you did with "A" and "B", and the papers in the desk? You are, verily, as I once (mysteriously) saw on the back of a blurb: an 'editor's editor.'

Hard questions you ask me about Hegel, Arendt and Adorno.

For Hegel: I'd have to say the stoicism/scepticism/unhappy consciousness section of the "Phenomenology" and (can I cheat and add another part) the reading of Antigone. But no-one can love a 'part' of Hegel. I love to trace how the same argument repeats itself at an entirely differnet level (like realising to what extent H. considers himself at once an Erasmian humanist and a good Lutheran -- quite a reconciliation!)

For Arendt: I love "Between Past and Future" -- the essay on authority in particular "On Revolution" is also I think her best work.

For Adorno, easy one: "Minima Moralia" -- Teddie in California, articulating hope in the language of despair. Some extaordinarily evocative aphorisms. Knives to the heart and all that.

All the best to you Victor, and thanks for saying hello to the new guy.

-Mal.

Welcome Maladjusted!

Don't hesitate, jump right into discussion! We look forward to your future contributions.

Well I've only been able to get through some Encyclopedia and the Intro to Phenemology as well as the parts my Kierkegaard prof directed me to. They're pretty good, hard, but interesting.

Arendt and Adorno are ok, and since they're both Kierkegaard influenced, I felt obligated to read them a little.

I like your Kierkegaard partisanship!

Actually, I have to admit that Kierkegaard is kind of a blank spot for me. I've read a few of his books, but I confess that the whole interlocking pseudonyms things intimidates me. I've also never read any of the post-pseudonymous writings (edifying discourses and so on.) I tried "Philosophical Fragments" quite recently and thought it was -amazing- but also was constantly worried that I might be missing the irony.
Speaking of which, I've also attempted (but not got through) "The Concept of Irony", which is one of the many books that I've never finished that screamed at me: possibly the best thing ever, if you'd only WORK at understanding me. So, I'm hoping I might learn a bit more about Soren K. while I'm hanging out in this forum.

-Regards,

-Mal

Oh, and thank you Zetherin!

It's very nice to be made welcome.

-Mal.

Welcome to the forum Maladjusted! We are glad to decided to join us, and I look forward to your future contributions.

Then you are familiar with validity claims and discourse ethics?

Thank you for the warm greetings, Thaeatetus.

"Mr. Fight the Power", do you mean (by way of saying 'hi'): have I read Habermas or am I just pretending? Or did you want to ask me something in particular about discourse ethics?


To be perfectly honest with you, I am familiar with, and yet really quite uncomfortable with 'discourse ethics'. For various reasons I've recently read -- big slog -- both volumes of the Theory Of Communciative Action, which I actually found overflowing with insights. The beginning of the second volume, Durkheim-Mead section, then the end (Parsons/Luhmann was extraordinary.) I then read Between Facts and Norms which occassioned enormous ambivalence in me, although I also found the early and late parts of this book brilliant -- albeit with the most turgid middle of any philosophy text I have ever encountered.

However, almost all of my confusions/objections reading to BFN had to do with H's invocation fo 'discourse ethics' principles that were NOT familiar to me from the The theory of communciative action. At the moment, in fact, I've been reading "Moral Consciousness and Communciative Action" to try and see whether I can accept all of this principle "U" and principle "D" stuff. I will have to read "Justification and Application" next to complete the picture. But "discourse ethics" is what makes me most uncomfortable in Habermas, apart from his seeming approval of Kohlberg.

On the other hand, as I say, I really like the second volume of TCA, although my favourite Habermas is "Philosophical Political Profiles", which I think figures some of Habermas's best writing.

But, did you want to bring up something in particular?

-Mal

Mal,

You will be receiving numerous personal messages asking for clarification or interpretation of Habermas' ethics if you don't mind.

Not at all, Mr. Fight. I'd be honoured.

The non-pseudonymous writings are the best books to read first in order to grasp SK; like For Self-Examination, though, Philosophical Fragments is one of Kierkegaard's more straightforward books. The Irony book is his Graduate thesis, so naturally immature (he was toying with his profs), but it's pretty interesting, IMO.