Adorno's Authenticity text
Lou Caton
lcaton at wisdom.wsc.ma.edu
Tue, 22 Apr 2003 15:21:26 -0400
--------------35C1EA9ED5FE10EA3F938558
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To Jim and all,
yes, thanks James for your comments below. I like your characterization
that the existentialist simply begins with a different set of assumptions.
Adorno's task in Jargon is to demystify the transcendental heritage of
consciousness. That means he must strip language of its link to
consciousness. So "to be" becomes another error, another attempt that
fails. But for the existentialist, it is the source. In the western
context, one sees it in God speaking to Moses: "I am that I am."
Hocas-pocas to Adorno. But even in Kant we have it in his recognition of
the inaccessible "thing-in-itself." Just a few more thoughts...
Lou
James Rovira wrote:
> I'm really glad you brought up Adorno's _Jargon of Authenticity_ again,
> Ralph...we started talking about this awhile back and the discussion
> fell by the wayside. I agree that Adorno wrote a convincing critique of
> Heidegger, but I'm not sure he wrote a fatal critique of Heidegger.
>
> For example, Adorno says at one point that Heidegger takes the word
> "is," which in Adorno's opinion is an empty concept (in itself) that
> only links subjects to predicates, and fills the word up to the point
> where it represents the ground of being.
>
> This doesn't constitute an infallible argument, though. All Adorno is
> telling us at this point is that his assumptions are different from
> Heidegger's. We already knew that.
>
> It's also not clear that Heidegger's ontology _necessarily_ leads to
> fascism. Adorno seems to ignore other existentialists who didn't go in
> for fascism at all; who resisted it, in fact, via their existentialism.
>
> Jim
>
> Ralph Dumain wrote:
>
> > Sorry for any possible confusion. My comments about Bourdieu were
> > directed to his book THE POLITICAL ONTOLOGY OF MARTIN HEIDEGGER. Over
> > the weekend I read Adorno's THE JARGON OF AUTHENTICITY. I must say I
> > found Bourdieu a much more enjoyable read, but this is hardly an
> > objective evaluation or serious criticism. They are quite different
> > works, but they both involve Heidegger's use of language.
> >
> > Bourdieu's book was quite fascinating, in that he focused on
> > Heidegger's terminology from the perspective of its covert dual
> > functioning, within the demarcated field of "philosophy" and in the
> > common ideological parlance of the day. Heidegger sought to insulate
> > his work from mere empirical criticism or reference, always removing
> > it to a plane of esoterism removed from profane everyday
> > understanding. Yet his success with the German intelligentsia was
> > bolstered by the resonances of his terminology with the reactionary
> > ideological usages of his words in common parlance. Heidegger's coded
> > language, despite hieratic pretensions, is what makes his ontology
> > political through and through, regardless of his actual affiliation
> > with the Nazi party.
> >
> > Bourdieu's approach, as you know, is based on his sociological concept
> > of the "field". Adorno does not work on the same basis, though he
> > invokes the concept of division of labor to explain the philosophical
> > specialist's proclivities. Adorno finds similar self-protective
> > measures in Heidegger's work as Bourdieu does. Adorno is concerned
> > about the debasement of language--jargon--its emptiness of real
> > content, now filled by catch phrases of indefinite meaning which serve
> > a duplicitous ideological function, in the manner of advertising
> > slogans. Though Heidegger wanted to insulate his nostalgic retreat to
> > Being (sentimentalizing preindustrial rural life in the process) the
> > vulgar everyday world of the "They", his vacuous ideas are of the very
> > essence of capitalist exchange value. There is a fundamental paradox
> > in trying to maintain the ethos of the mythic in a demythologized
> > world. Heidegger attempts to insulate himself in advance by proving
> > that his would-be interpreters must of necessity misunderstand him,
> > but Adorno finds him out.
> >
> > The most difficult aspect of reading Adorno's book is his references
> > to German discourse of the time (presumably the early '60s). He
> > refers to the abuse of language in everyday political and social
> > discourse and the resonance of same in Heidegger's work, but without
> > acquaintance of the former I get only a nebulous picture of what
> > Adorno's allusions mean. Furthermore, I do not know the dominant
> > intellectual or specifically philosophical trends of the time, though
> > it appears as if German existentialism is still dominant or at least
> > prevalent.
> >
> > Adorno dissects Heidegger's rural phoniness and use of keywords and
> > concepts such as commitment, curiosity, idle chatter, dignity, and
> > death. Adorno intensively analyzes the relation between wholeness and
> > death (involving also the "they" and exchange), finding therein the
> > sour fascist violence at the root of Heidegger's entire philosophy.
> > Adorno's quotations from Heidegger reveal the fraudulent, empty claims
> > of Heidegger's jargon. The only philosopher who comes off looking
> > worse is Jaspers.
--------------35C1EA9ED5FE10EA3F938558
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
To Jim and all,
<p>yes, thanks James for your comments below. I like your characterization
that the existentialist simply begins with a different set of assumptions.
Adorno's task in <i>Jargon</i> is to demystify the transcendental heritage
of consciousness. That means he must strip language of its link to
consciousness. So "to be" becomes another error, another attempt
that fails. But for the existentialist, it is the source. In
the western context, one sees it in God speaking to Moses: "I am that I
am." Hocas-pocas to Adorno. But even in Kant we have it in
his recognition of the inaccessible "thing-in-itself." Just a few
more thoughts...
<p>Lou
<p>James Rovira wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>I'm really glad you brought up Adorno's _Jargon of
Authenticity_ again,
<br>Ralph...we started talking about this awhile back and the discussion
<br>fell by the wayside. I agree that Adorno wrote a convincing critique
of
<br>Heidegger, but I'm not sure he wrote a fatal critique of Heidegger.
<p>For example, Adorno says at one point that Heidegger takes the word
<br>"is," which in Adorno's opinion is an empty concept (in itself) that
<br>only links subjects to predicates, and fills the word up to the point
<br>where it represents the ground of being.
<p>This doesn't constitute an infallible argument, though. All Adorno
is
<br>telling us at this point is that his assumptions are different from
<br>Heidegger's. We already knew that.
<p>It's also not clear that Heidegger's ontology _necessarily_ leads to
<br>fascism. Adorno seems to ignore other existentialists who
didn't go in
<br>for fascism at all; who resisted it, in fact, via their existentialism.
<p>Jim
<p>Ralph Dumain wrote:
<p>> Sorry for any possible confusion. My comments about Bourdieu
were
<br>> directed to his book THE POLITICAL ONTOLOGY OF MARTIN HEIDEGGER.
Over
<br>> the weekend I read Adorno's THE JARGON OF AUTHENTICITY. I must
say I
<br>> found Bourdieu a much more enjoyable read, but this is hardly an
<br>> objective evaluation or serious criticism. They are quite different
<br>> works, but they both involve Heidegger's use of language.
<br>>
<br>> Bourdieu's book was quite fascinating, in that he focused on
<br>> Heidegger's terminology from the perspective of its covert dual
<br>> functioning, within the demarcated field of "philosophy" and in the
<br>> common ideological parlance of the day. Heidegger sought to
insulate
<br>> his work from mere empirical criticism or reference, always removing
<br>> it to a plane of esoterism removed from profane everyday
<br>> understanding. Yet his success with the German intelligentsia
was
<br>> bolstered by the resonances of his terminology with the reactionary
<br>> ideological usages of his words in common parlance. Heidegger's
coded
<br>> language, despite hieratic pretensions, is what makes his ontology
<br>> political through and through, regardless of his actual affiliation
<br>> with the Nazi party.
<br>>
<br>> Bourdieu's approach, as you know, is based on his sociological concept
<br>> of the "field". Adorno does not work on the same basis, though
he
<br>> invokes the concept of division of labor to explain the philosophical
<br>> specialist's proclivities. Adorno finds similar self-protective
<br>> measures in Heidegger's work as Bourdieu does. Adorno is concerned
<br>> about the debasement of language--jargon--its emptiness of real
<br>> content, now filled by catch phrases of indefinite meaning which
serve
<br>> a duplicitous ideological function, in the manner of advertising
<br>> slogans. Though Heidegger wanted to insulate his nostalgic
retreat to
<br>> Being (sentimentalizing preindustrial rural life in the process)
the
<br>> vulgar everyday world of the "They", his vacuous ideas are of the
very
<br>> essence of capitalist exchange value. There is a fundamental
paradox
<br>> in trying to maintain the ethos of the mythic in a demythologized
<br>> world. Heidegger attempts to insulate himself in advance by
proving
<br>> that his would-be interpreters must of necessity misunderstand him,
<br>> but Adorno finds him out.
<br>>
<br>> The most difficult aspect of reading Adorno's book is his references
<br>> to German discourse of the time (presumably the early '60s).
He
<br>> refers to the abuse of language in everyday political and social
<br>> discourse and the resonance of same in Heidegger's work, but without
<br>> acquaintance of the former I get only a nebulous picture of what
<br>> Adorno's allusions mean. Furthermore, I do not know the dominant
<br>> intellectual or specifically philosophical trends of the time, though
<br>> it appears as if German existentialism is still dominant or at least
<br>> prevalent.
<br>>
<br>> Adorno dissects Heidegger's rural phoniness and use of keywords and
<br>> concepts such as commitment, curiosity, idle chatter, dignity, and
<br>> death. Adorno intensively analyzes the relation between wholeness
and
<br>> death (involving also the "they" and exchange), finding therein the
<br>> sour fascist violence at the root of Heidegger's entire philosophy.
<br>> Adorno's quotations from Heidegger reveal the fraudulent, empty claims
<br>> of Heidegger's jargon. The only philosopher who comes off looking
<br>> worse is Jaspers.</blockquote>
</html>
--------------35C1EA9ED5FE10EA3F938558--