9 ms·

It's fine to dislike Adorno, but to say he largely deserves to be forgotten is preposterous. He's arguably the first thinker to attempt to recast and reformulat

It's fine to dislike Adorno, but to say he largely deserves to be forgotten is preposterous. He's arguably the first thinker to attempt to recast and reformulate philosophy in such a way that it could remain critically potent in the modern world. To take such a hand-waving, dismissive attitude toward all of his contributions, which are dense, difficult, and backed by a deep study of the history of western thought, based on the flaws of one study (by the way, Adorno himself even admitted to not being the best equipped to conduct sociological studies like this, he was first and foremost a critic and philosopher) is ridiculous and in fact the very imprint of the sort of limited uncritical/psuedo-critical forms of modern thinking he constantly rallied against.

scottlocklin 7y ago
> He's arguably the first thinker to attempt to recast and reformulate philosophy in such a way that it could remain critically potent in the modern world. Citations needed. That statement doesn't even mean anything. I'm pretty sure if it does mean something, it applies more readily to someone like Wittgenstein, Heidegger, hell even Richard Rorty or David Stove. It would be nice if you could name "all of his contributions" or even one of his contributions beyond the book touted in this review: I don't think there are any worth talking about. He really deserves to be forgotten. Unless you think "everything I don't like is Hitler" is a great contribution to Western Philosophy.
- voidhorse 7y ago
  Sure, I can clarify. By critically potent, I mean specifically philosophy that can serve as a value critique--"moralizing philosophy" if you will. Wittgenstein's philosophical work is incredible and was fundamental to the discipline and to logic and mathematics, but his work is typically not value critique (excepting Culture and Value which is not considered important by most readers of his oeuvre). Heidegger is, I suppose, another contender, but again, I don't consider the majority of his philosophy oriented around value critique (though his essays on technology do fit into this category and are excellent). Heidegger's thought, I find, is also less coherent, and he really stood by this image of the philosopher as "holier than thou" bearer of truths (this is actually touched upon in the article) which is an old model (actually, a mythic model concerned with power) that I think is impracticable. Not to mention, Sarte's conception and formulation of existentialism had a much greater general impact on human thought than Heidegger's, which, though in vogue for a while, has been mostly re-confined to the academy. I'm not as familiar with Richard Rorty's work as I should be, so he may qualify. But Adorno has him beat on timing--Rorty's Bibliography doesn't start until '52 (https://web.stanford.edu/~mvr2j/rr/biblio_2007.html https://web.stanford.edu/~mvr2j/rr/biblio_2007.html). Meanwhile, Horkheimer and Adorno had already published Dialectic of Enlightenment at that point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_W._Adorno_bibliography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_W._Adorno_bibliography). I am not familiar with David Stove or his works. So he may qualify. I'll certainly check him out later, however! As for the works of Adorno's that are worth reading: Negative Dialectics, Dialectic of Enlightenment, Minima Moralia, Aesthetic Theory, His works on Hegel. And there's more--those are the major works. Your last sentence smacks of someone who has never even read a page of Adorno but rather has some generic, skewed conception of "critical theory" and thinks that's an adequate account of the thought of a philosopher (which, clearly being familiar with philosophers and the depth of their works, seems absurd that you'd adopt such a reductive and uninformed viewpoint on the matter). It's the equivalent to thinking Wittgenstein is reducible to a concern over "mere semantics" or Heidegger is reducible to, and dismissable on account of, his nazism. Rather presumptuous and rather close-minded.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    David Stove's "what is wrong with our thoughts" is tremendous. And accessible.
    - voidhorse 7y ago
      Thanks for the recommendation!
  - scottlocklin 7y ago
    "Value technique" seems to be garden variety moralizing. Yes, the entire Frankfurt school did this. So did the old testament prophets and Billy Graham. I don't think it's a particularly potent philosophical argument; though it is functionally a sort of cod religion with purity rituals you can get dumb, lost people to adopt in a post-christian culture. Which is more or less what actually happened in the 60s. I'll say it again: Adorno is a quack who is best forgotten, except as a cautionary tale. The book reviewed here, which attempted to use science to back up his cod-morality/purity religion is a great example of why.
    - voidhorse 7y ago
      Fair enough, but while we're on the subject of religiosity, I'd recommend reflecting upon your own line of thinking and arguments, which are airy and empty, and make plain that you're not willing to change your stance on the matter (dogma). It's also quite funny that you'd mention Heidegger, of all people, and then accuse the Frankfurt school, of all things, of engaging in rituals. Let's not forget, you're discussing a school of thought that was criticized for having no positive assertions and operating almost entirely negatively. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems quite impossible to construct a religion on something that's comprised of nothing but the critique of other ideologies and value systems all the while offering little to no alternative. In fact, your claim is totally bizarre. Adorno's inability to offer a positive system/alternative to all the things he relentlessly critiqued was, and still is, the chief argument against his philosophical work today. In efforts to try to unpack what you're saying, perhaps what you mean by "cod religion" is that the popularity of the school's stances and works bothers you? or more likely the means in which some people have adopted the thought bother you (passionately and aggressively)? but it's not fair to extend distaste for the followers of a thinker to the thinker. Existentialism has its own merry band of people that don't have a complete understanding of the subject but bandy it about and rudely shove it down everyone's throats nonetheless. Same goes for the "analytic" philosophers. Cynicists...etc. Even returning to your original gripe (by the way, nothing more than the contents of a single Wikipedia article that criticizes one study conducted by Adorno and others, and not a primary nor philosophical argument against his body of work), the criticisms levied at the study aren't even that damning. Do they call the results into question? Certainly. The coding issues are probably the biggest problem with the study. Should they temper one's interpretation of that particular text? Of course. Do they invalidate the entire edifice of Adorno's thought? I think it'd be a bit extreme to go so far, but what do I know of rationality, after all? In fact, criticisms of this kind are not outlandish and similar issues crop up all the time in studies of this sort--social science is difficult to get right, and is much fuzzier territory than the "hard" stuff. There is, after all, a replication crisis in psychology for a reason. If you have some stronger reasons and philosophical critiques of Adorno's overall positions I'd be more willing to potentially accede and reconsider my own thinking on his work, but as it stands you're just insisting on his worthlessness without so much as attempting to compose even a fart of an argument as to why anyone should agree with you. If anything, your comments suggest the attitude of a person who is both ignorant and passionate on this subject and thus feels it necessary to put forth statements that are extreme, empty, and divisive.

scottlocklin 7y ago

> He's arguably the first thinker to attempt to recast and reformulate philosophy in such a way that it could remain critically potent in the modern world. Citations needed. That statement doesn't even mean anything. I'm pretty sure if it does mean something, it applies more readily to someone like Wittgenstein, Heidegger, hell even Richard Rorty or David Stove. It would be nice if you could name "all of his contributions" or even one of his contributions beyond the book touted in this review: I don't think there are any worth talking about. He really deserves to be forgotten. Unless you think "everything I don't like is Hitler" is a great contribution to Western Philosophy.

voidhorse 7y ago
Sure, I can clarify. By critically potent, I mean specifically philosophy that can serve as a value critique--"moralizing philosophy" if you will. Wittgenstein's philosophical work is incredible and was fundamental to the discipline and to logic and mathematics, but his work is typically not value critique (excepting Culture and Value which is not considered important by most readers of his oeuvre). Heidegger is, I suppose, another contender, but again, I don't consider the majority of his philosophy oriented around value critique (though his essays on technology do fit into this category and are excellent). Heidegger's thought, I find, is also less coherent, and he really stood by this image of the philosopher as "holier than thou" bearer of truths (this is actually touched upon in the article) which is an old model (actually, a mythic model concerned with power) that I think is impracticable. Not to mention, Sarte's conception and formulation of existentialism had a much greater general impact on human thought than Heidegger's, which, though in vogue for a while, has been mostly re-confined to the academy. I'm not as familiar with Richard Rorty's work as I should be, so he may qualify. But Adorno has him beat on timing--Rorty's Bibliography doesn't start until '52 (https://web.stanford.edu/~mvr2j/rr/biblio_2007.html https://web.stanford.edu/~mvr2j/rr/biblio_2007.html). Meanwhile, Horkheimer and Adorno had already published Dialectic of Enlightenment at that point (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_W._Adorno_bibliography https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_W._Adorno_bibliography). I am not familiar with David Stove or his works. So he may qualify. I'll certainly check him out later, however! As for the works of Adorno's that are worth reading: Negative Dialectics, Dialectic of Enlightenment, Minima Moralia, Aesthetic Theory, His works on Hegel. And there's more--those are the major works. Your last sentence smacks of someone who has never even read a page of Adorno but rather has some generic, skewed conception of "critical theory" and thinks that's an adequate account of the thought of a philosopher (which, clearly being familiar with philosophers and the depth of their works, seems absurd that you'd adopt such a reductive and uninformed viewpoint on the matter). It's the equivalent to thinking Wittgenstein is reducible to a concern over "mere semantics" or Heidegger is reducible to, and dismissable on account of, his nazism. Rather presumptuous and rather close-minded.
- pjc50 7y ago
  David Stove's "what is wrong with our thoughts" is tremendous. And accessible.
  - voidhorse 7y ago
    Thanks for the recommendation!
- scottlocklin 7y ago
  "Value technique" seems to be garden variety moralizing. Yes, the entire Frankfurt school did this. So did the old testament prophets and Billy Graham. I don't think it's a particularly potent philosophical argument; though it is functionally a sort of cod religion with purity rituals you can get dumb, lost people to adopt in a post-christian culture. Which is more or less what actually happened in the 60s. I'll say it again: Adorno is a quack who is best forgotten, except as a cautionary tale. The book reviewed here, which attempted to use science to back up his cod-morality/purity religion is a great example of why.
  - voidhorse 7y ago
    Fair enough, but while we're on the subject of religiosity, I'd recommend reflecting upon your own line of thinking and arguments, which are airy and empty, and make plain that you're not willing to change your stance on the matter (dogma). It's also quite funny that you'd mention Heidegger, of all people, and then accuse the Frankfurt school, of all things, of engaging in rituals. Let's not forget, you're discussing a school of thought that was criticized for having no positive assertions and operating almost entirely negatively. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems quite impossible to construct a religion on something that's comprised of nothing but the critique of other ideologies and value systems all the while offering little to no alternative. In fact, your claim is totally bizarre. Adorno's inability to offer a positive system/alternative to all the things he relentlessly critiqued was, and still is, the chief argument against his philosophical work today. In efforts to try to unpack what you're saying, perhaps what you mean by "cod religion" is that the popularity of the school's stances and works bothers you? or more likely the means in which some people have adopted the thought bother you (passionately and aggressively)? but it's not fair to extend distaste for the followers of a thinker to the thinker. Existentialism has its own merry band of people that don't have a complete understanding of the subject but bandy it about and rudely shove it down everyone's throats nonetheless. Same goes for the "analytic" philosophers. Cynicists...etc. Even returning to your original gripe (by the way, nothing more than the contents of a single Wikipedia article that criticizes one study conducted by Adorno and others, and not a primary nor philosophical argument against his body of work), the criticisms levied at the study aren't even that damning. Do they call the results into question? Certainly. The coding issues are probably the biggest problem with the study. Should they temper one's interpretation of that particular text? Of course. Do they invalidate the entire edifice of Adorno's thought? I think it'd be a bit extreme to go so far, but what do I know of rationality, after all? In fact, criticisms of this kind are not outlandish and similar issues crop up all the time in studies of this sort--social science is difficult to get right, and is much fuzzier territory than the "hard" stuff. There is, after all, a replication crisis in psychology for a reason. If you have some stronger reasons and philosophical critiques of Adorno's overall positions I'd be more willing to potentially accede and reconsider my own thinking on his work, but as it stands you're just insisting on his worthlessness without so much as attempting to compose even a fart of an argument as to why anyone should agree with you. If anything, your comments suggest the attitude of a person who is both ignorant and passionate on this subject and thus feels it necessary to put forth statements that are extreme, empty, and divisive.