Adorno's Authenticity text

[James Rovira]

Nah, shoot, I was talking about the Adorno, not the Bourdieu.  I haven't 
read the latter.  Sounds interesting, though.

Jim

Ralph Dumain wrote:

> I don't recall the example of "is", but I'll take your word for it.  
> As for Bourdieu's assumptions, my memory is not exact, but it would 
> seem he calls into question Heidegger's whole method, especially its 
> way of insulating itself from any criticism or even rational 
> evaluation, but also its pretension to greater insight (why should 
> Heidegger's conceptions of seemingly ordinary concepts be any more 
> profound than their ordinary senses?).
>
> I can no longer remember Lukacs' critique.  THE DESTRUCTION OF REASON 
> has a main theme the bogus notion of intellectual intuition, which 
> gets its big boost historically from Schelling.  My guess then is that 
> Lukacs' critique would go right to the main ontological and 
> epistemological issues of subjective idealism.
>
> Which reminds me, while the argumentative basis between Lukacs and 
> Adorno in aesthetics is well documented (I believe the most relevant 
> documents are collected in AESTHETICS AND POLITICS), I am only aware 
> of a couple of sentences Adorno wrote on Lukacs' THE DESTRUCTION OF 
> REASON.  Adorno asserts this book only amounts to evidence of the 
> destruction of Lukacs' own reason.  Also, that Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, 
> etc. were in their own way protesting against reification.  I find 
> this extremely lame, pathetic really.  Did Adorno write anything else 
> on Lukacs' book?  And, as I've asked several times, is there any 
> secondary literature that seriously compares the critiques of 
> Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Husserl, etc., on the part of Lukacs and 
> Adorno, respectively?
>