Re: BHA: Is it Hegel or Adorno?

[Martti Puttonen <pop@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ruth,

Sorry if I am distracting your discussions about the differences of
Hegel and Adorno.

I also have had a search on Adorno's philosophy, expecially his
negative dialectics by philosophical references being trancendental,
dialetical critcial ones.

I have not noticed that Adorno has been able to explicate a realist
philosophy which is critical either in the sense of critical realism
(real ontology) or in the sense of critical thinking. He mainly tried
this via the path of the latter, but noticed its impossibility himself
quite explicitly. So, Ruth how is Adorno's philosophy critical realist
one? If you say, that Adorno explicated critical realism in very
broad and ambiguous way, it is not critical realist philosophy where
there is open totality as real.

Not going to interfere to your discussion for more.. .One comment:
In my mind Adorno does not prefer Kant over Hegel or any other
philosopher, because he sought for the only realist philosophy
which is explicable among all existing irreal philosphies. For him
Kant was the point of reference of making his own searches by
means of minimal theoretical, philosophical concepts, that is
subject-object, identity, 'real', self-reflection, etc.

Martti Puttonen

Ruth wrote:

> Hi Phil,
>
> No prob, but thanks for the nice words anyhow.
>
> There is actually a wonderful-looking symposium here next weekend
that my advisor is involved with, on Adorno.  I'm, like, the only person
who has ever worked with him who isn't presenting a paper there!  O well.
Critical realism it is.
>
> You wrote:
>
>    Now to Adorno this alienation derives from the overconfidence and
> >complacency of reason which never seems to be adequate to the richness of
> >experience.  To Adorno, Hegel is implicated in this problem.
>
>
> Yes, I think this is right (though it's not *only* reason that is involved).
>
>
> >But, as I read Hegel, what gives meaning to experience is precisely reason.
> >By this I mean reason working through history, which is not pure and simply
> >human reason, but is a teleology located in nature as a whole.  If I may put
> >it like this, Hegel seems to be saying to Adorno "My dear fellow, human
> >experience is indeed incredibly varied and important to analyse, but let's
> >not imagine that human experience supplies reason.  It is in truth much
> >closer to say that reason supplies human experience.".
>
> I'm not in a position to assess Adorno's reading of Hegel, so I am really limited
in what I can say, but it seems to me that our guys reach kind of an impasse here.
As I understand him, Adorno will say that this claim in Hegel's hands is the crux
of what he, Adorno, calls the myth of constitutive subjectivity.  This is why Adorno
prefers Kant in certain ways -- because in Kant there is at least the recognition
that reason comes up against objective limits.  And it is not just a question of
metaphysics; it relates to the qualifications of Hegel's politics that you introduce.
That is, Adorno thinks that it's not just that Hegel happens unfortunately to
endorse the Prussian state.  He (along with Marx) would say that an illusory
freedom is (at best) [the "at best" part is Adorno on his own] precisely what is
expressed in the idea that reason can be co-extensive with being.
>
> In one sense, for Adorno it comes down to Hegel not being a materialist.
It's interesting that this isn't a problem for you.  On the contrary, it sounds as
though it is precisely the metaphysics that you are drawn to,
because it authorizes a conception of reason as potentially all-
extensive.  In fact, if I understand you, your criticism of Bhaskar is
that his attempt at absolute idealism falls short.  (Bhaskar, I think,
would in turn charge you with "cognitive triumphalism," I think he
calls it.)
>
> But back to Adorno for a second.  Adorno also suggests that the conception
of reason that comes from Hegel is in some sense necessarily totalitarian.
I'm assuming that you don't buy that either!  I'm curious, though, how you
think about that aspect of his critique, if you have.
>
> Warmly,
> Ruth
>
>
>
>      --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---



     --- from list bhaskar@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---