A note on the translation

Adorno, Theodor W.; Hailey, Christopher; Brand, Juliane

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511552441.002

Cited by 4 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…25 Adorno 1966: 15/Ashton: 3 26 That is why, for Adorno, not to undertake philosophy is 'practically criminal [praktischer Frevel]' (Adorno 1966(Adorno : 243 / 1973. See also (Freyenhagen 2014).…”

Section: Adorno Tends To Speak Of 'Dialectic' To Denote the Tracing Amentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rather, it is apt specifically in our context because that context is one in which not only philosophical theories present themselves as systems which are, in fact, riddled with contradictions, but because our social world also is such a system. 28 In that sense, 'dialectics is the ontology of the wrong state of things'; and '[T]he right one would be emancipated from it, as little system as contradiction' (Adorno 1966(Adorno : 22 / 1973. 29 Here we also begin to see the difference to Hegel, whose work exerted a decisive influence on Adorno's.…”

Section: Adorno Tends To Speak Of 'Dialectic' To Denote the Tracing Amentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A related, but perhaps even more important, break is that Adorno eschews both the telos of absolute identity of mind and world and the trust in progress that he sees as essential to Hegel's dialectic. That is why Adorno speaks of 'negative dialectic' (Adorno 1966(Adorno : 145, 398 / 1973) -nothing in the dialectic process guarantees a positive resolution of contradictions, especially not a culmination in 'absolute knowledge'; and the existing totality of which dialectic is the ontology stands forth not as reconciled state, but as 'triumphant calamity' (Horkheimer and Adorno 2002: 1), and this ought to cure us of any attempts to squeeze positive meaning out of history (Adorno 1966(Adorno : 354 / 1973. 30 For all the benefits modern civilisation brings, it is -according to Adorno -a 'triumphant calamity' because it is characterised by a decoupling (or even inversion) of means and ends that is most clearly exemplified in the death camps of Auschwitz 28 Despite important changes since his death (including the fall of the Soviet block), Adorno, if he were alive, would view today's existing context as fundamentally continuous with the one he described in his works.…”

Section: Adorno Tends To Speak Of 'Dialectic' To Denote the Tracing Amentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Without this knowledge it would not come to the breakout, without the appropriation of the power of the system the breakout would fail. (Adorno 1966(Adorno : 40 / 1973 30) 31 31 Redmond's online translation used and amended. See also (Adorno 1966(Adorno : 183 / 1973.…”

Section: Intriguingly Adorno Himself Notes the Limitations Of Immanementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The summary judgement that it had merely interpreted the world, that resignation in the face of reality had crippled it in itself, becomes a defeatism of reason after the transformation of the world miscarried. (Adorno 1966(Adorno : 15 / 1973 Adorno still accepts that philosophy is something that could be realised and perhaps thereby come to an end in some sense. But he now thinks the opportunity for such a realisation has passed -in part because '[p]erhaps the interpretation which promised the transition did not suffice' (Ibid.).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Critical Theory’s Philosophy

Freyenhagen¹

2017

The Cambridge Companion to Philosophical Methodology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Critical Theory has an uneasy relationship to philosophy, and it is a complex question whether it constitutes a philosophical position at all: it both aims to leave philosophy behind and insists on the need for it.On the one hand, Critical Theory stands in the tradition of Marx (and Engels), in a commitment to a truly interdisciplinary approach, and in some authors (such as Adorno) it even leads to a certain anti-philosophical stance, where partisanship is not philosophically grounded and the very idea of a philosophical system is seen as anathema.1 There is some controversy around attributing this claim to Marx and Engels insofar as this passage is crossed out in the manuscript -it is an open and contestable issue whether this reflects that they dropped the claim on reflection or merely decided against bringing it in at this particular point in the text.

show abstract

Section: Adorno Tends To Speak Of 'Dialectic' To Denote the Tracing Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Adorno Tends To Speak Of 'Dialectic' To Denote the Tracing Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Adorno Tends To Speak Of 'Dialectic' To Denote the Tracing Amentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Intriguingly Adorno Himself Notes the Limitations Of Immanementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Critical Theory’s Philosophy

Freyenhagen¹

2017

The Cambridge Companion to Philosophical Methodology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

A whole lot of misery: Adorno's negative Aristotelianism—Replies to Allen, Celikates, and O'Connor

Freyenhagen

2017

European J of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can one both be an Aristotelian in ethics and a negativist, whereby the latter involves subscribing to the view that the good cannot be known in our social context but that ethical guidance is nonetheless possible in virtue of a pluralist conception of the bad (of which this context and human history provide us ample knowledge)? Moreover, is it possible to combine Aristotelianism with a thoroughly historical outlook? I have argued that such combinations are, indeed, possible, and that we can find an example of them in Adorno's work. In this paper, I reply to three critics (Allen, Celikates and O'Connor) who cast doubt on this proposal. I also reply to other concerns they raise, regarding immanent critique, negativism, the role of social theory in Adorno's work, and the danger of being co‐opted. I stress the holism of Adorno's position, and, amid some more deflationary moves, insist on the distinctiveness of the Aristotelian position that results.

show abstract

Difference without fear: Adorno contra liberalism

Feola

2013

European Journal of Political Theory

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article intervenes in recent debates surrounding Adorno's contribution to critical social theory. Where it is something of a commonplace to argue that Adorno pessimistically withdraws from political concerns, the article argues for a more productive set of normative contributions -based within his utopian gestures towards a 'difference without fear'. At stake is not only a more sensitive approach to Adorno's texts, but the broader normative question of difference and its political meaning.

show abstract

A note on the translation

Cited by 4 publications

References 0 publications

Critical Theory’s Philosophy

Critical Theory’s Philosophy

A whole lot of misery: Adorno's negative Aristotelianism—Replies to Allen, Celikates, and O'Connor

Difference without fear: Adorno contra liberalism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About