C.T after DoE

[matthew piscioneri]

But this draws into question habermas's project.

Worthless?

mattP

Ps: although I agree certain of JH's concerns seem to be rendered 
impertinent by a closer reading of DoE. quotes to follow :-).

MattP,

>>Rauno,
>>
>>This IS precisely the question IMO:
>>
>>>One might also ask was the idea of critical theory invalidated  in
>>> >DIALECTIC OF ENLIGHTENMEN.
>>
>>My feelings are that the subcategory of critical reason was seen by H & A. 
>>to be "infected" with the dialectic of enlightenment ('the seed of 
>>reversal') as were other subcategories of Reason. Put simply the entire 
>>category of Reason was susceptible to inversion. So Adorno at least turned 
>>to art to recover any notion of positive enlightenment.
>
>I don't believe this reading is entirely correct, or even plausible 
>considering many of Adornos statements.
>It is true that 'critical was infected by the dialectic of enlightenment' 
>otherwise it would be impossible to
>understand the paradoxical prose and structure of Negative Dialectics. One 
>cannot do away the contradictions
>rising from wanting to criticise conceptual thinking by way of conceptual 
>thinking by a pure act of will.
>The contradiction is real not a simple matter of 'bad thinking', however 
>the contradiction should not be
>hypostatised as some kind of universal ahistorical condition for all future 
>thought. This is were Adornos
>utopian thinking comes into being - he wanted to 'enlighten the 
>enlightenment'.

enlighten the enlightened. Well I guess that's what we are trying to do in 
the realpolitik at present. We are trying to remind America that its inner 
core is radical democracy. In this way there is a link up with the word of 
Marx. This is where perhaps China falls down. Not enough Marx. the 
liberation of the Iraqi working people is a victory for new
socialism.


best regards,

mattP.



>It is of course correct that Adorno 'turned to art' but this turn should 
>again not be misunderstood. It was not
>an abandonment of philosophy - because without aesthetics (which is one 
>part of philosophy) art works
>would not be able to give a 'promise' of some kind of other enlightenment. 
>The reason why Adorno put so
>much emphasis on the practices of art is that - according to Bernsteins 
>reading - this sphere of life is the
>only one where there is a 'systematic transformation in the relation 
>between concept and object'. This
>transformed relation (what one could called a mimetic relationship) is a 
>necessary precondition for an
>enlightened enlightenment - or a critical reason without the dialectic. It 
>is however, not only in artworks
>this transformed relationship occurs - again according to Bernstein - it 
>does occur in the social world
>in what he terms 'fugitive experiences' - and he points to the last chapter 
>of Negative Dialectics:
>'Mediations on Metaphysics' where Adorno tries to thematise this problem.
>
>Claus
>
>
>____________________________________________________________________________
>"Hos mange mennesker er det allerede en uforskammethed, nr de siger 'jeg'" 
>(T.W. Adorno)
>
>


_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail now available on Australian mobile phones. Go to  
http://ninemsn.com.au/mobilecentral/hotmail_mobile.asp