This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1kjellika
Anybody interested in Theodor W. Adorno and his philosophy? I've got two of his books in Norwegian translation: Estetisk teori (Esthetical Theory?) and "Notar til litteraturen" (Notes to literature).
2reuchlin
Hello kik,
I've been sort of interested in Adorno since I heard Marcuse describe him (back in the 60s) as the most formidable mind he'd ever known. But I can't say that anything I've read in the interim justifies that eulogy (for me). I'm more of an Aquinas man meself, but nothing if not an ignoramus.
The one thing that's always irritated me(not necessarily a bad thing, imo) is the dictum "no poetry after Auschwitz", and I wondered if you had any strong opinions about that. (I certainly do)
R.
I've been sort of interested in Adorno since I heard Marcuse describe him (back in the 60s) as the most formidable mind he'd ever known. But I can't say that anything I've read in the interim justifies that eulogy (for me). I'm more of an Aquinas man meself, but nothing if not an ignoramus.
The one thing that's always irritated me(not necessarily a bad thing, imo) is the dictum "no poetry after Auschwitz", and I wondered if you had any strong opinions about that. (I certainly do)
R.
3kjellika
Well, I've surely heard that quote, but I didn't know it was from Adorno (or maybe I knew it before and had forgotten it).
All the same: I like the way Adorno discusses modern art and literature, and his claim that the function of art has been taken over by the cultural industry. I don't agree with all his ideas, but some of them are extremely relevant, I think.
I must admit that Estetisk teori is rather difficult to understand with a lot of words and phrases I have to look up in my dictionaries, so I guess I'll use some months (or maybe years since I'm reading fiction simultaneously) to get through it. But I like challenges and therefore I am mowing slowly forward.
Notes to literature was a bit easier to read and understand, but I don't remember very much of it since I read it some 7-8 years ago. Reread it? Time will show.
kik.
All the same: I like the way Adorno discusses modern art and literature, and his claim that the function of art has been taken over by the cultural industry. I don't agree with all his ideas, but some of them are extremely relevant, I think.
I must admit that Estetisk teori is rather difficult to understand with a lot of words and phrases I have to look up in my dictionaries, so I guess I'll use some months (or maybe years since I'm reading fiction simultaneously) to get through it. But I like challenges and therefore I am mowing slowly forward.
Notes to literature was a bit easier to read and understand, but I don't remember very much of it since I read it some 7-8 years ago. Reread it? Time will show.
kik.
4lukeasrodgers
I've personally never been able to get into Adorno. I found The Authoritarian Personality fairly unenlightening and its methodology somewhat suspect, and Dialectic of Enlightenment to be one of the most difficult philosophy books I've ever tried to read (gave up about 40 or 50 pages in). It's like combining Zizek and Hegel: not only do you have no idea where the argument is going (Zizek), you're also continually encountering terms that are used in unfamiliar ways, with the silent expectation that you somehow know wtf is going on.
Horkheimer is a bit of a different story -- Critique of Instrumental Reason is at least an intelligible book, though I found it to be pretty weak on the actual "critique".
Horkheimer is a bit of a different story -- Critique of Instrumental Reason is at least an intelligible book, though I found it to be pretty weak on the actual "critique".
5SupahX3
I haven't read everything of his, but I'd hazard a guess that the Minima Moralia is the best introduction to Adorno's work. It's engaging and covers a wide range of his themes and concerns.
In graduate school I took a class on the Negative Dialectics, and I was not the only one who found this difficult going. I'm given to understand that this was partly due to the English translation; supposedly Negative Dialectics reads more like the Minima Moralia in the original German.
I like some essays in Notes To Literature and Prisms. Often Adorno is best taken in a small dose.
I'd be insterested in hearing what you think of Aesthetic Theory, as I haven't read it. It's a fairly dense and hefty work, isn't it?
In graduate school I took a class on the Negative Dialectics, and I was not the only one who found this difficult going. I'm given to understand that this was partly due to the English translation; supposedly Negative Dialectics reads more like the Minima Moralia in the original German.
I like some essays in Notes To Literature and Prisms. Often Adorno is best taken in a small dose.
I'd be insterested in hearing what you think of Aesthetic Theory, as I haven't read it. It's a fairly dense and hefty work, isn't it?
6kjellika
#5
Yes, Aesthetic Theory really is a hefty and rather difficult work. I must admit I had to postpone it some weeks ago to concentrate on fiction.
I am participating in some group reads here at LT, and I think it more interesting than philosophy for the time being.
I hope to read more Adorno etc. later on. I'll surely have one or more philosopic period(s) as time goes by.
And by the way: There is often as much (or more) philosophy in fiction literature than in faction (i.e. philosophy works). It may be subtle, but I think it's easier to understand - for an amateur like me - than 'heavy' philosophic books.
Yes, Aesthetic Theory really is a hefty and rather difficult work. I must admit I had to postpone it some weeks ago to concentrate on fiction.
I am participating in some group reads here at LT, and I think it more interesting than philosophy for the time being.
I hope to read more Adorno etc. later on. I'll surely have one or more philosopic period(s) as time goes by.
And by the way: There is often as much (or more) philosophy in fiction literature than in faction (i.e. philosophy works). It may be subtle, but I think it's easier to understand - for an amateur like me - than 'heavy' philosophic books.
