I’m currently finishing my PhD on Adorno, and I’ve always found it quite sad how much of an alienating figure he can be on the left. He is commonly disregarded - often in other fields that philosophy - out of hand, on a surface level engagement with his cultural critiques. These often see him as on overly totalising or cynical thinker. However, most these critics don’t engage with his philosophical methodology, which is fascinating. It was based around trying to synthesise Marxism with what - at the time - was institutionalised philosophical doctrines. The negative dialectic is essentially an effort to try reconcile Ontology with dialectical materialism (with a little bit of Kantian epistemology thrown in the pot). Ie. Adorno - along with the whole Frankfurt school (who I don’t want to downplay, but he wrote the most rigorous text of the bunch) - paved the way for trying to create a truly Marxist philosophical foundation; a truly emancipatory philosophy. His efforts in this have been superceded, in some sense, by many of the French thinkers of the 60-70s, but I think it’s a damn shame how little credit he gets for what - at his time - was a hurculean task of synthesising philosophy with left wing politics.

Anyway, I’m getting ahead of myself in my Adorno stanning, but the crux of my post is this: would anyone be interested in partaking in a reading group on Adorno? Weekly, fortnightly, monthly, whatever works. I’ve dedicated the last bloody 5 years of my life to this guy, and the least I feel I could do with that knowledge is share it with likeminded comrades online and try help people understand this truly amazing (yet difficult) thinker. If there is takers, I’m thinking we will begin with Dialectic of Enlightenment. He co wrote this with Max Horkheimer early(ish) in his career, and it is the best introduction to Adorno, and the thought of the Frankfurt school as a whole. Anyway, let me know what you think comrades! I love you all.

  • hegel_daddy [any]
    hexagon
    ·
    4 years ago

    Hello all! Sorry for the late response, I’ve been crazy busy lately editing my thesis.

    I’m Encouraged by the response to this! I’m definitely down to lead this reading group, but will have to wait till decemberish when all my uni work is done. It’s really got ahead of me.

    So I will post more about this then once I’m done! I will prob start just slinging out analysis/ discussion on the chapters once a fortnight/month people can feel free to join discussion on, and I’ll try help lead the discussion.

    So until then all the best. And I’d anyone is feeling particularly inspired, feel free to start ch.1 “the concept of enlightenment” and dm me any questions. (I linked the PDF in a prev comment) Herein Adorno and Horkheimer begin the central argument of their thesis: the dogmatic structures of ‘reason’ that we start judging social progress by under the progress of enlightenment do little else than replace our pre ‘enlightenment’ epistemology with dogma from the social totality that validates the current state of affairs as some a priori principle. That is, If u replace pre-enlightenment ‘myth’ dogma with ‘reason’, ur just creating another dogmatic structure that shapes how one perceived the world yo. In the words of zizek: it’s pure ideology

    All the best comrades, I’ll speak to you in a few weeks with my dissesction of chapter one