[FRA:] recent reading in critical theory

[chaney525]

I thought it was very clear that Benjamin needed Adorno's practical
help and did not get any.  I could be wrong, I could be projecting, but
it seems to me that Buck-Morss is pointing out that their relationship
was not that useful.  Also, calling it Negative, seemed to me to be a
reflection of the non-christian tone of their relationship, the moral
climate surrounding Benjamin, and the resulting tragedy.  Where there
was hope, there was nothing practical.  FredW

--- Ralph Dumain <rdumain at igc.org> wrote:

> Even though I just read this book, my memory has already faded.  But
> I 
> don't quite recognize what either of you fellows have suggested. 
> Benjamin 
> cozied up to Brecht, though he was far more esoteric a thinker, and
> Adorno 
> rejected Brecht's conception of art.  Does this entail "caught
> between"?  I 
> don't know exactly what this means.
> 
> As for Adorno failing Benjamin, I don't know what this means, 
> either.  Benjamin seems to have been Adorno's major influence, but
> Adorno 
> objected to what he saw as Benjamin's lapses, which is also what he 
> objected to in surrealism: the lack of a theoretical mediation beyond
> the 
> description and juxtaposition of constellated phenomena.  Adorno
> would have 
> thought, I suppose, that Benjamin failed him.  But I don't quite know
> what 
> you are getting at.
> 
> At 08:33 AM 4/27/2006 -0400, James Rovira wrote:
> >Didn't Buck-Morss present Benjamin as caught between Brecht, the
> >doctrinaire communist, and Adorno, the critical theorist?  Or is
> that
> >Martin Jay?
> >
> >Jim R.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> theory-frankfurt-school mailing list
> theory-frankfurt-school at srcf.ucam.org
> http://www.srcf.ucam.org/mailman/listinfo/theory-frankfurt-school
> 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com