Horkheimer Max Adorno Theodor W Dialectic of Enlightenment Philosophical Fragments

Enclosed is the syllabus and course notes from the upper division course I teach in PostModernism and Post-Marxist Critical Theory. It occurs to me that some of these essays--ranging from Horkheimer and Adorno, Baudrillard, Foucault, and the feminist post-modern theorist Donna Haraway may offer some insight and some tools for comprehending the dark times in which we live. While these essays may not be directly aimed at understanding the rise of phenomena like the Alt-Right, toxic masculinity, and particularly violent forms of patriarchy, I think they can show us something about the ideological trends that set us on out current morally troubling path.

La tesi presenta inizialmente il pensiero di Jacques Derrida sull'animalità. Il tema affrontato è la sovranità dell'uomo sul resto dei viventi, in particolare nei riguardi della discriminazione dell'animalità. Nei capitoli a seguire si attua un'emancipazione dell'animalità e non dall'animalità come la corrente umanista voleva. Attraverso l'ontogenesi del concetto di "umanità" viene decostruito il costrutto che sorregge la soglia che divide l'uomo dagli animali, laddove essi partecipano all'animalità in maniere differenti. L'emergenza di questa composizione dei temi trattati si erge ad azione esemplare con cui Derrida, prima di morire, ha lasciato delle tracce da seguire durante il ricevimento del premio Adorno.

In diesem Beitrag wird im ersten Teil die Beziehung des jungen Walter Benjamin zur Jugendbewegung ('Jugendkulturbewegung') und seine dazu gehörende Schätzung des Dichters Stefan George historisch-philologisch dargestellt. Hierbei fällt zunächst auf, dass schon der 13-jährige Schüler Walter Benjamin im Jahre 1905 im ‚Landerziehungsheim’ Haubinda (Thüringen) unter den dauerhaften und ihn verpflichtenden Einfluss des Schulreformers Gustav Wyneken geriet. In den Jahren bis 1914 spielte Walter Benjamin in der von Wyneken ins Leben gerufenen ‚Jugendkulturbewegung’ eine herausragende Rolle. Bereits in dieser Phase lernt Benjamin seit dem Jahre 1912 die Lyrik des Dichters Stefan George kennen, die dann den Hintergrund seiner Freundschaft zu dem jungen deutschen Dichter (und Mitglied der 'Jugendkulturbewegung') Fritz Heinle bildet. Dessen Selbstmord bei Kriegsausbruch im Jahre 1914 bewirkt bei Walter Benjamin eine Lebenskrise, die ihn – auch als Protest gegen den 1. Weltkrieg – ins Exil die Schweiz führt.
Im zweiten Teil des Beitrages wird gezeigt, wie Benjamins Prägung durch Gustav Wyneken, Stefan George und die 'Jugendkulturbewegung' sein bedeutendes Werk als Kritiker und Philosoph in den 20-er und 30-ger Jahren bis zu seinem Freitod an der spanischen Grenze im Jahre 1940 mitgeprägt hat. In seinen Rückblicken auf Stefan George aus den Jahren 1928 und 1933 und in seinem späten Briefwechsel  mit Theodor W. Adorno (aus dem Jahr 1940) versucht Benjamin die Dichtung Stefan Georges – trotz seiner, von ihm selbst eingestandenen Mitwirkung am Aufstieg des 3. Reiches – zu ‚retten’. Ausschlaggebend ist für ihn dabei die Erinnerung an die Rolle, die die Lyrik Stefan Georges für ihn und seine, bei Publikation der Rückblicke in den Jahren 1928 und 1933, bereits toten Freunde aus der Zeit der 'Jugendkulturbewegung', gespielt hat.

Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 is a classic dystopian novel dealing with myriad themes, including the issue of censorship, a much controversial one pertinent even in the 21st century. Bradbury wrote quite presciently about a future where the culture Industry has taken control over our lives. The futuristic (24th century) world of Fahrenheit 451 is marked by a strong animosity towards learning; to quote Gray's prophetic (nonetheless, unintentional) lines 'Where ignorance is bliss'. Unlike the Orwellian world, the forbidden fruit here is the book. Reading is tantamount to sedition. One becomes a threat to the status quo of the society by imbibing knowledge; by becoming a deviant, one ruptures the carefully woven fabric of homogeneity, which makes sure that mass deception or something vaguely similar to Arendt's 'Banality of Evil'(Here, Ignorance) prevails. We find the characters in the novel blindly adhering to a totalitarian regime, one which is reminiscent of the deeds of the Nazi officers. When they were put on trial for the atrocities they had meted out to 6 million innocent Jews, they came up with a justification. They were just following orders from superior officers. The characters of the novel, especially the ones who assume a position in the vanguard of book burners are no less innocent. The protagonist, Guy Montag for example, before starting to develop dissenting views, mindlessly burns a plethora of valuable tomes including classics, for reasons he is not cognizant of. Nor does he feel any compunction for the same as Beatty, the leader of the firemen.

This paper explains how Horkheimer and Adorno came to understand Enlightenment as totalitarian, illustrated by five examples of possible totalitarianism. It concludes by drawing a line between the totalitarianism of Enlightenment and Western European societies' attitudes just prior to the Second World War. It can be argued that totalitarian Enlightenment 'primed' people, as it were, for the horrors that were to come.

In this chapter I offer a critical re-reading of the Frankfurt School’s concept of culture industry by arguing that this concept can only be understood in connection with the goals of critical theory [1] as a theory of society, [2] as an extension of Marx’s critique of political economy, as well as [3] as a materialistic theory of subjectivity. These three dimensions of the concept of culture industry are tied together by Kant’s concept of schematism that Adorno and Horkheimer turn into a social-material concept in order to analyze capitalist social relations.

The secondary literature on Dialectic of Enlightenment is vast but most contributions focus on one isolated aspect or chapter of the book. Much of it is meta-theoretical and often sidesteps detailed textual analysis. There is a general tendency to overstate the extent to which Dialectic of Enlightenment constitutes a turning point in Critical Theory. Schmid Noerr, one of the most authoritative commentators in the German-language literature, asserts that in his writings from the 1930s Horkheimer had seemed more optimistic about the possibility that Critical Theory could be articulated with critical empirical scholarship as well as radical political action than Dialectic of Enlightenment suggests (Schmid Noerr, 1987: 437). He also points out, though, that several projects that involved empirical research, and which were begun in parallel with and completed after Dialectic of Enlightenment, closely followed the programme of Critical Theory as formulated by Horkheimer in the 1930s, including proposals for reform of the education system meant to prevent the emergence of the ‘authoritarian character’ prone to fascist mobilization (Schmid Noerr, 1987: 448). Observations like these suggest that there are multiple shifts in emphasis between the many different texts that comprise the canon of Critical Theory but no definitive and central shift of perspective. This chapter is based on a close reading and examination of key passages of the text and concludes that the idea that there was a ‘negative turn’ of which Dialectic of Enlightenment was the avatar is simplistic and unconvincing.

F*ck May 68, Fight Now: Exploring the Uses of the Radical Past from 1968 to Today

Session 1: History is a Weapon

June 8, 2018

Department of History, University of Liverpool

https://archive.discoversociety.org/2018/09/04/circumnavigating-the-past-foreclosing-the-future-commemoration-of-the-radical-past-in-the-amnesiac-present/

ABSTRACT
In sociology, the construct of society and social order reflect intellectual world. The argument that people are a product of the society they live in is an undeniable fact. Music earns a social meaning with knowledge to carry out sociological research and the competence to comment on the ontology of music. This is because music goes beyond an intuitive act and plays an active role in the imagination of a common social act. Only an interdisciplinary cooperation can provide answers to questions such as what music is and what people do with music. Reason, the " positive " cult used in conception and method, brings along arguments in understandings of progress in societies as well as in the development of their cultures, thereby aiding both processes. Culture-centered sociological research could help art and especially music earn autonomy. These works of research asserted their scientific value in the Frankfurt School (Institute for Social Research), the center of theoretical trends in the first quarter of the 20 th century. Representatives of this system of thought such as Adorno, Horkheimer and Marcuse who manifested historical and philosophical perspective with critical theory, were nurtured by the zeitgeist and from an epistemological point of view, considered art as a conveyor of social meaning. This paper will discuss the language of music within a sociological perspective and in the specific case of Frankfurt School, examining the function of music on intermediary grounds incomparable to any other artistic expression, its political economy; elements, conditions and results of musical production. These areas of focus will be discussed from the standpoint of musical meaning and social relations between rational thinking and culture and arts.

Resumen:
Es mediante la apelación a algunos críticos relevantes de la modernidad –Freud, Simmel, Adorno, Horkheimer, Shestov, Müller-Hill, Kafka, etc.– que Bauman se esfuerza por construir una auténtica ontología de la modernidad, así como una fenomenología crítica de sus implicaciones culturales, morales y políticas, y de sus límites –perfilados por la presencia infranqueable de la ambivalencia–, con las que su texto adquiere el rango de una aportación señera a esta misma tradición moderna de la sospecha. Bauman, apoyado en autores como Horkheimer y Adorno, quienes realizan una crítica demoledora de la Ilustración y dejan entrever un influjo de desconfianza y pesimismo sobre buena parte de la literatura filosófica europea de la segunda mitad del siglo XX. Es Horkheimer, uno de los miembros fundadores de la Escuela de Frankfurt, quien desarrolla la “teoría critica”, a partir del predominio de una racionalidad procedimental a partir de la cual el conocimiento humano no opera según presupuestos jerárquicos-metafísicos (teoría tradicional) sino pragmático-procedimentales (teoría crítica) al interior de las comunidades científicas y de los contextos socio-culturales del mundo. Esto significa que todo modo de conocer es interesado y, que sólo conocemos por el interés. Con lo que sienta las bases de la Ecuela de la Sospecha. De allí que Bauman en Modernidad y ambivalencia4 pretendiera, como bien lo apunta Wellmer, complementar la tarea emprendida por los pensadores más destacados de la primera generación de la Escuela de Frankfurt. Bauman “intenta envolver con carne histórica y sociológica el esqueleto de la Dialéctica de la Ilustración”. Lo que dota a Bauman de una particular originalidad a la vez que de una filiciación a tradiciones filosóficas reconocibles y contrapuestas: “por un lado, la que originándose en Schopenhauer, pasa por Nietzsche para acabar alcanzando a Klages y, por otro, la que desde Hegel, pasando por Marx y Weber, arriba hasta el joven Lukács”.
Dr. Adolfo Vásquez Rocca

»Philosophie, die nicht Sprachphilosophie ist, kann heute eigentlich überhaupt gar nicht vorgestellt werden«. Das vorliegende Buch nimmt diesen Satz Theodor W. Adornos zum Ausgangspunkt für eine systematische Rekonstruktion der sprachphilosophischen Überlegungen in seinem Werk und liefert damit sowohl einen originellen Beitrag zur Adorno-Forschung als auch zu gegenwärtigen Diskussionen in der Sprachphilosophie. Dabei wird in einer umfassenden, detaillierten und in der Sache unvoreingenommenen Weise das Vorurteil korrigiert, Adornos Philosophie sei eine letzte Form der seit dem linguistic turn überholten Bewusstseinsphilosophie.

Zunächst wird die Rolle beleuchtet, die der Sprache in der naturgeschichtlichen Genese von Subjektivität zukommt, worin die Sprache als eine zweite Natur bestimmt wird, die den menschlichen Weltzugang sowohl grundsätzlich ermöglicht als auch auf eine je spezifisch historische und soziale Weise entfaltet und zugleich einschränkt. Dieses dialektische Verhältnis von Freiheit und Herrschaft, von Befreiung und Verschließung, von dem die Sprache bestimmt ist, wird anhand von Adornos Theorie des Namens, des Begriffs, des Urteils, der Konstellation, der Sprache der Kunst und der gesellschaftlichen Kommunikation ausdifferenziert.

Erstmalig liefert das Buch so eine systematische Semantik Adornos, die sprachlichen Gehalt sowohl durch das inferentielle Verhältnis von Begriffen und Sätzen zueinander als auch durch die Beziehung von Begriffen und Sätzen auf die nicht-sprachliche gesellschaftliche Realität bestimmt sieht.
Indem Adornos Gedanken stets in der Diskussion mit gegenwärtigen sprachphilosophischen Ansätzen entwickelt werden – wobei der materiale Inferentialismus Robert Brandoms, John McDowells Theorie begrifflicher Erfahrung und die Diskursethik von Jürgen Habermas die wichtigsten Bezugspunkte darstellen –, gelingt dem Buch eine Pointierung einer aktuellen kritischen Theorie der Sprache im Anschluss an Adorno, die vorschlägt, die Bestimmtheit der Sprache durch kritikwürdige soziale Verhältnisse gerade dann ernst zu nehmen, wenn am befreienden Potential der Sprache festgehalten werden soll.

OMG - THIS  PROVES THAT THE EXTENT OF OUR COLLECTIVE AND INDIVIDUAL CONSCIOUSNESSES EXCEEDS THE CONFINES OF THIS MULTIVERSE

THEY CONFIRM THAT HUMANITY KILLS ITSELF OFF ENTIRELY AND THEN STARTS OVER, THAT CYCLE IS ABOUT TO CHANGE VIA THE COMING EVENT, WHICH WE CAN CAUSE VIA ORGONE BUBBLE TECHNOLOGY.

Em relação dialética com as crescentes transformações tecnológicas, as contínuas mudanças nas formas de interação e comunicação humanas são impulsionadoras de redes sociais e novas mídias de massa, ensejando im pactos decisivos e novas experiências, as quais exigem
uma devida compreensão científica e crítica. Essa nova realidade mundial desafia a comunidade acadêmica a renovar suas interpretações, requerendo abordagens integradas, permanentemente subsidiadas pelo diálogointerdisciplinar. Contribuem para este ambiente reflexivo áreas de investigação como a Filosofia, a Psicologia, a Comunicação, o Jornalismo, a Linguística, a Educação, a Arte, a Semiótica, ao lado de outras Ciências Humanas e Sociais. Enfoques direcionados a pesquisas no campo tecnológico, da informação e do comportamento muito têm a colaborar para uma visão mais abrangente desses fenômenos, trazendo reflexões e análises próprias, bem como inovadoras perspectivas teóricas e metodológicas. Animado por este propósito é que surgiu a ideia do Simpósio Internacional de Filosofia, Comunicação e Subjetividade (Lubral 2016). Ao integrar pesquisadores de três diferentes países, quatro nacionalidades e di-versas instituições, o simpósio priorizou a aproximação cultural e o compartilhamento de experiências sobre
formas emergentes de interconexão, comunicação e relacionamento humanos, estudadas em diferentes campos de abordagem.
Colaboraram para a execução deste evento o Curso de Especialização em Filosofia oferecido desde 2010 pela PUC Minas – Campus Poços de Caldas, juntamente com outras atividades acadêmicas realizadas pelo Núcleo de Ciências Humanas desta mesma unidade e sua atuação nos vários cursos de graduação da PUC Minas. Também se envolveram de modo especial os cursos de Comunicação Social e de Psicologia da PUC Minas, além de três Grupos de Pesquisa da instituição, vinculados ao CNPq – Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa: Cultura, Memória e Sociedade; Filosofia, Religiosidade e suas Interfaces; Modos de
Produção da Subjetividade. Do lado brasileiro destaca-se ainda a parceria e atuação do Instituto de Ciências Humanas e Letras da Universidade Federal de Alfenas (ICHL/Unifal-MG), pelo Grupo de Pesquisa, vinculado ao CNPq, Filosofia, História e Teoria Social. Do lado português, une-se a esta experiência o trabalho de ensino, pesquisa
e produção acadêmica desenvolvido pelo Labcom.IFP, da Universidade da
Beira Interior (UBI - Covilhã, Portugal), nas áreas de Filosofia, Comunicaçãoe Mídia, Fenomenologia, Artes e Humanidades, representado através dos grupos de Filosofia Prática e de Comunicação e Media.

This article seeks insights into Borowski’s Auschwitz stories through the lens of Benjamin’s innovative philosophy of history. Although Benjamin’s life ended before the advent of Auschwitz as we know it, his final writings anticipate with great acuity the extent to which the Holocaust would render untenable positivist notions of history and progress. In a similar vein, the relationship between Auschwitz and history, broadly conceived, is a pressing concern in This Way for the Gas. These two writers, whose very lives were overturned by the Holocaust, seem to have concluded that history is inherently traumatic and that the tormented past lives on in the present. Consequently, they see historical events as a premonition of the present catastrophe, and they view Nazism as the latest iteration in an extended sequence of traumatic violence that is difficult, although not impossible, to interrupt. This kind of thinking links historical development with Freudian trauma theory, especially with the notion that collective traumas return belatedly in symptomatic form to haunt communities and nations. The two writers may be called anti-Hegelians: both are alert to the residues of past traumas that cannot be synthesized into a positive result. Unlike Marxists convinced that history moves in a positive direction, both are pessimistic about its course and therefore skeptical of the prospects for social progress. Moreover, they seem to suspect that history is more mythic and archetypal than dialectical.

Eleştirel Kuramın politik felsefeye alternatif olarak öne sürdüğü sosyal felsefe anlayışı, ortaya çıktığı tarihsel-toplumsal dönemin izlerini taşır. Siyasi kurumların irrasyonelleşmesi, demokratik işleyişin patolojik bir vaziyet kazanması, savaşların ortaya çıkması, faşizmin hüküm sürmesi, bireyin özerkliğinin yok edilmesi, tekelci devlet kapitalizmi gibi gerçeklikler Eleştirel Kuramın sosyal felsefe anlayışının oluşturulmasında etkili olmuştur. Bu çalışmada, ortaya çıktığı tarihsel-toplumsal bağlam dolayısıyla Eleştirel Kuramın sosyal felsefe anlayışının günümüz tarihsel-toplumsal gerçekliğini açıklamada elverişli olduğunu ileri sürüyorum. Günümüzde negatif koşullar ağırlaşmakta, savaşlar hâlâ devam etmekte, faşizm geniş çapta hüküm sürmekte, yoksullar ile zenginler arasında uçurum açılmakta, gözetim ve denetim yoluyla tekilin özerkliği hücrelerine kadar kapsanmakta, eleştiri susturulmaya çalışılmaktadır. Böyle bir ortamda Eleştirel Kuramın sosyal felsefenin görevlerini yeniden ele almak, iki farklı dönem arasındaki tarihsel-toplumsal ortak noktalar nedeniyle gereklidir. Bununla birlikte, Eleştirel Kuramı bütünlüklü olarak yeniden tesis etme girişimi, teorik olduğu kadar pratiği de hedefleyen bir girişimdir. “Başka olan”ı hedefleyen sosyal felsefe, dünyayı değiştirme çabalarının yenik düştüğü bir ortamda değişim meselesine yeniden ışık tutabilecek bir yaklaşıma sahiptir. Tüm bu nedenlerle, sosyal felsefenin görevlerinin günümüzde hâlâ geçerli olduğu ve Kuramın içinde bulunduğumuz tarihsel-toplumsal gerçekliği kavramada elverişli olduğu, bu çalışmanın temel iddiasını oluşturmaktadır.

An Adornian Heritage in Flusser's Thought? References to Auschwitz in the first phase of Flusser's thought Biographical events strongly influence a person's existential position and, if he/she is an intellectual, those events will almost certainly resonate in some measure in his/her writings, depending evidently on the gravity of the occurrences. Vilém Flusser was not an exception. Not only because he was Jewish, but mainly because his whole family was murdered in Nazi extermination camps (his father in Buchenwald, his mother and sister in Theresienstadt-Bernardo and Guldin 2017: 59ff), Flusser focused

Pointing out Max Weber's influence on the Frankfurt School is, to a certain extent, a challenging endeavor, not due to the lack of shared topics but - on the contrary - because there are too many possible ways to indicate such influence. My option in this paper is to stress a central concept in Weber's thought, the " disenchantment of the world," which is equally relevant to one of the founding works of the Critical Theory of Society - the Dialectic of the Enlightenment. In the first section, I intend to pursue the meaning of the concept "disenchantment of the world"  throughout Weber's writings. Subsequently, in the second and last section, I point out how Horkheimer and Adorno understood and developed the same concept in their common work.

La philosophie, qui parut un moment dépassée, se maintient en vie parce que le moment de sa réalisation a été manqué. Le jugement sommaire selon lequel elle n'aurait fait qu'interpréter le monde, et, par résignation devant la réalité, se serait atrophiée en elle­-même, devient défaitisme de la raison, dès lors que la transformation du monde n'a pas réussi.

Everything begins in France: sociology and, hard to believe, antisemitism
too. Auschwitz, the epitome of the National Socialist mass murder
of European Jews between 1942 and 1945, has obstructed our perspective on the history of antisemitism. Only reflection in the mode of social theory can open it up again. Such reflection was pioneered by the critical theorists, exiled in the United States, whose epochal key text, Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944), throws its light also on the present volume and its exploration of the genetic connection between sociology and antisemitism.

Si propone la seguente pratica didattica: analizzare in classe alcune pagine in cui, da prospettive diverse, G. B. Vico (XVIII sec.) e i filosofi della Scuola di Francoforte (XX sec.) trattano dell’opera di Omero. In tal modo si intende favorire la riflessione sull’illuminismo, sull'importanza di Omero nella storia della cultura occidentale e, soprattutto, svolgere una lezione in cui si mostra la relazione tra il metodo di lettura (ovvero tra le domande che il lettore pone a un testo), e i significati che emergono da quella determinata lettura.

Essa tese investiga a relação entre filosofia e seus compromissos com o presente a partir da elaboração dos diagnósticos de tempo na obra de Theodor W. Adorno, estabelecendo como recorte, para tanto, dois momentos de sua produção: i) três textos de sua filosofia no início da década de 30 – Atualidade da Filosofia, Ideia de história natural e Teses sobre a linguagem do filósofo; ii) sua produção de meados da década de 40, cuja referência principal é sua obra a quatro mãos escrita com Max Horkheimer, a Dialética do Esclarecimento. Tal proposta se constitui com base numa compreensão da metodologia dos diagnósticos de tempo, entendidos como uma compreensão filosófica da correlação entre experiência e linguagem sob a mediação da história, algo cuja gramática operativa pode ser concebida através da ideia de história natural. Como desdobramento estrutural dessa concepção, propomos sua apresentação através de três movimentos teóricos: i) abordagem dos aspectos extrínsecos do diagnóstico, entendidos sob a multiplicidade de tendências embutidas nas transformações culturais, acadêmicas, políticas e ideológicas; ii) abordagem da crítica filosófica da filosofia empreendida pelo autor por via de seu respectivo acerto de contas com a tradição filosófica pertinente às discussões inerentes aos próprios diagnósticos; iii) apresentação e análise do projeto filosófico proposto pelo autor enquanto desdobramento das tarefas filosóficas para o tempo presente desde o estabelecimento propriamente dito do próprio diagnóstico de tempo. Com esse modelo de abordagem, essa tese procura afirmar a história natural como sentido da proposição do diagnóstico de tempo em Adorno enquanto potencial crítico-filosófico e pelo qual seja possível conceber uma filosofia que seja capaz, ao mesmo tempo, de afirmar as tarefas do presente e de se colocar à altura dessas mesmas tarefas.

In seiner "Phänomenologie des Geistes" hat Hegel eine Dialektik der Aufklärung formuliert, die für die kritische Theorie der ersten Generation schulbildend wurde. Die dialektische Diagnose lautet: Im Prozess ihrer Verwirklichung zerstört sich die Aufklärung selbst. Die dialektische Diagnose, dass Aufklärung zwar Freiheit zum Ziel, aber Herrschaft und Mord zum Resultat hat, teilen Horkheimer und Adorno mit Hegel.

Der Kern dieses Problems liegt – bei Horkheimer und Adorno wie bei Hegel – im Zusammenhang von Freiheit und Nützlichkeit. Weil aufklärerische Freiheit an das Prinzip der Nützlichkeit gebunden ist, führt Befreiung in Herrschaft. Horkheimers und Adornos Aneignung von Hegels Konzept der Nützlichkeit ist allerdings – wie ich in diesem Beitrag zeige – vereinseitigend. Ein anderer Rückgang auf dieses Konzept könnte demgegenüber eine Perspektive auf „einen positiven Begriff“ von Aufklärung öffnen, den vorzubereiten Horkheimer und Adorno zum Ziel ihrer Kritik erklären.

Adornos 'Ästhetische Theorie' ist ein eigensinniges Gebilde. Dies artikuliert bereits ihr Titel. Er lässt uns zwar im Unklaren darüber, was genau wir bei einer Ästhetischen Theorie zu erwarten haben, er eröffnet allerdings eine ganze Reihe an möglichen Auslegungen – und Fragen. So könnte es sich bei der Ästhetischen Theorie um eine Theorie über Ästhetisches, also schlicht eine Ästhetik handeln. Mindestens genauso naheliegend wäre es jedoch anzunehmen, dass der Titel ‚Ästhetische Theorie‘ eine Theorie anzeigt, die ästhetisch ist, eine ästhetische Theorie also. Gesetzt dem wäre so: Ist sie nun das eine oder (nur) das andere? Ist sie gar beides? Und wenn ja, ist sie beides gleichermaßen? Oder eher bzw. mehr das eine und weniger das andere? Es scheint, als deutete der Titel eine recht innige, verschränkte Beziehung an. Sollten wir daher davon ausgehen, dass die 'Ästhetische Theorie' das eine ist, indem sie das andere ist? Oder sollten wir, mehr noch, darauf abheben, dass sie das eine nur sein kann, indem sie auch das andere ist? Müssten wir gar davon sprechen, dass sie das eine sein muss, um auch das andere sein zu können? Je nachdem wäre diskussionswürdig, ob die 'Ästhetische Theorie' ästhetische Theorie sein muss, um Theorie über Ästhetisches sein zu können; oder ob sie, anders gewendet, Theorie über Ästhetisches sein muss, um als Theorie überhaupt ästhetisch zu sein bzw. werden zu können. Dies wiederum evozierte die Frage, ob Theorie (nur) ästhetisch sein kann (oder muss), wenn der Gegenstand, auf den sie sich bezieht, ästhetisch ist – und sonst nicht. Ist also die Theorie in der Ästhetischen Theorie ästhetisch um des Ästhetischen willen oder ist die Ästhetische Theorie Theorie über Ästhetisches um des Ästhetisch-Seins (oder: -Werdens) von Theorie willen? Ist mit dem ästhetisch-Sein von Theorie, bzw. dem ‚ästhetische Theorie‘-Sein etwas bezeichnet, das jenseits des ‚Theorie über Ästhetisches‘-Seins Bestand, Bedeutung und Geltung hat? Und was soll es überhaupt heißen, dass Theorie ästhetisch ist? Ist damit eine Theorie gemeint, die in bestimmter Weise, nämlich ästhetisch verfasst ist? Worin aber bestünde eine solche ästhetische Verfasstheit von Theorie? Was bedeutete ästhetisch verfasste Theorie zu sein für den Status des Theorie-Seins? Haben wir mit der 'Ästhetischen Theorie' etwa eine Theorie vor uns, die unser Verständnis von Theorie verändern, gar grundsätzlich in Frage stellen will? Diese Überlegungen berühren freilich die Frage, wie wir den Status der 'Ästhetischen Theorie' einzuschätzen hätten. Stellt die 'Ästhetische Theorie' also ästhetische Theorie vor, dar oder eher bereit? Sprich: Ist die 'Ästhetische Theorie' ästhetische Theorie, insofern dass ästhetische Theorie sich genau einmal, eben als 'Ästhetische Theorie' realisierte? Das bedeutete, dass es ästhetische Theorie jenseits (bzw. nach) der 'Ästhetischen Theorie' nicht gibt und geben kann. Oder: Ist die 'Ästhetische Theorie' ästhetische Theorie gewissermaßen nur am Beispiel einer Theorie über Ästhetisches, so dass sie eine exemplarische oder gar eine paradigmatische Funktion hätte?
Obwohl Adorno mit dem Titel ‚Ästhetische Theorie‘ in geradezu provokanter Weise die komplexe, offenbar vieldeutige Eigensinnigkeit der Ästhetischen Theorie artikuliert, blieb es bisher aus, ebendieser gründlich, gewissermaßen Schritt für Schritt, nachzugehen, mögliche Lesarten auszudifferenzieren und darauf zu verzichten, die 'Ästhetische Theorie' vorschnell auf eine festzulegen. Just dies nehme ich mir mit diesem Beitrag vor. Ich widme mich der Schwierigkeit, die Behauptung, die Adorno uns mit der 'Ästhetischen Theorie' zumutet, überhaupt zu verstehen. Ich frage also: Was und wozu ist die 'Ästhetische Theorie'? Und antworte darauf, indem ich mögliche Lesarten vorstelle, als was (und wie) sie gelesen werden kann.

Reassessing the Radical Enlightenment comprises fifteen new essays by a team of international scholars that re-evaluates the characteristics, meaning and impact of the Radical Enlightenment. This collection examines aspects of the Radical Enlightenment between 1660 and 1825, spanning England, Ireland, the Dutch Republic, France, Germany and the Americas. In addition to dealing with canonical authors and celebrated texts such as Spinoza and his Tractatus theologico-politicus, authors discuss many less well-known figures and debates from the period. Divided into three parts, this book:

• Considers the Radical Enlightenment movement as a whole, including its defining features and characteristics and the history of the term itself.

• Traces the origins and events of the Radical Enlightenment, including in-depth analyses of key figures including Spinoza, Toland, Meslier, and d’Holbach.

• Examines the outcomes and consequences of the Radical Enlightenment in Europe and the Americas in the eighteenth century. Chapters in this section examine later figures whose ideas can be traced to the Radical Enlightenment, concluding with three chapters examining the role of the period in the emergence of egalitarianism.

This collection of essays is the first stand-alone collection of studies in English on the Radical Enlightenment. It is a timely and comprehensive overview of current research in the field while presenting new studies and research on the Radical Enlightenment.

The Dialectic of Enlightenment is a book of paradoxes. The most commonly noted is summed up in the book's preface: "enlightenment reverts to mythology". Progress becomes regression, civilization ends in barbarism. A focus on this paradox suggests that the book is a critique of enlightenment thinking, which will be always and forever dominating. A second paradox often receives less attention: enlightenment itself is not enlightened. My argument is that this paradox is central to the text, and that it should, in fact, be stated more strongly: only enlightenment is not yet enlightened. This conclusion is warranted by two arguments. In the first, the Dialectic of Enlightenment shows that enlightenment is mythical-not enlightened-in the sense that it is taken as a given that human beings must simply accept, rather than subjecting it to critique. In the second, the book shows that any non or anti-enlightenment thought is already enlightened, in the sense that they are entangled with enlightenment practices , social forms, or concepts. This second argument is made through parodies of anti-enlightenment ideas that were common through the first half of the 20th century. Seen in this light, The Dialectic of Enlightenment is at least as much a parodic critique of anti-enlightenment thought as it is a criticism of enlightenment as we know it. I begin by summing up the intellectual atmosphere in which Horkheimer and Adorno wrote Dialectic of Enlightenment , noting some attempts to find other-than-enlightenment foundations for critique. Next, I discuss important interpretations of the book's attitude towards enlightenment, before describing the authors' systematically ambiguous use of the term as both totalitarian and emancipatory. I then describe how the book uses parody to show that there can be no other-than-enlightenment ideal to set against enlightenment. All such ideals are already enlightened. This shows that consistent anti-enlightenment thinking is impossible. In that case, we can conclude that only enlightenment is not yet enlightened, in the sense that enlightened, modern society appears to us as a myth-and therefore unalterable. But, because other-than-enlightenment ideas are all already entangled with this apparently unalterable society, the only foundation for the critique of enlightenment is a properly self-critical, non-mythical enlightenment.