Adorno's Authenticity text

[Jim Rovira]

I don't fit in there anywhere.

I'm neither partial to Heidegger nor to Adorno and have read both.

I feel that Adorno makes some valid critiques of existentialist discourse and of
Heidegger's philosophy.

I feel that Adorno makes some less than valid critiques of existentialist
discourse and of Heidegger's philosophy.

It's useful at points but I don't hate it.  Or Heidegger.

Jim

Kenneth MacKendrick wrote:

> Just a casual observation, not really intended to stimulate anything... - a
> caricature to be sure!
> 1. those who have read Adorno's Jargon and don't know anything and don't
> want to know anything about Heidegger tend to love the book.
> 2. those who've read both Adorno and Heidegger and are sympathetic to
> critical theory think it is Adorno's worst book, or at least a 'popular' and
> (unfortunate) polemical reading of Heidegger.
> 3. those who've read both Adorno and Heidegger and are sympathetic to
> Heidegger think it is Adorno's worst book and a really shallow reading of
> Heidegger.
> 4. those who have read it and know a great deal about Heidegger and aren't
> partial to critical theory hate it and Adorno.
>
> Is this familiar to anyone?
>
> Happily corrected,
> ken