300 Sozialwissenschaften
Refine
Year of publication
- 2015 (54) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (25)
- Part of Periodical (8)
- Contribution to a Periodical (7)
- Working Paper (7)
- Review (5)
- Conference Proceeding (1)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- German (18)
- English (16)
- Portuguese (9)
- Spanish (8)
- Italian (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (54)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (54) (remove)
Keywords
- Recognition (5)
- Reconhecimento (4)
- Axel Honneth (3)
- Critical Theory (2)
- Critical theory (2)
- Dialética negativa (2)
- Education (2)
- Educação (2)
- domination (2)
- gender (2)
Institute
- Gesellschaftswissenschaften (54) (remove)
[Nachruf] Lothar Schmidt
(2015)
Die Frankfurter Goethe-Universität ist stolz darauf, seit langem Sitz und Wirkungsstätte von inzwischen mehreren Generationen „kritischer Theoretiker“ der „Frankfurter Schule“ zu sein. Die beiden unumstrittenen intellektuellen Häupter der frühen Jahrzehnte sind inzwischen offiziell auf dem Campus Westend angesiedelt, in Form einer Max-Horkheimer-Straße und eines Theodor W. Adorno-Platzes. Größer als der Glanz Horkheimers, des Begründers der Frankfurter Schule und Ehrenbürgers von Frankfurt, ist längst der Adornos, den man gern als Jahrhundert-Größen geltenden Philosophen wie Heidegger und Wittgenstein an die Seite stellt. 2003 wurde Adornos 100. Geburtstag zum Anlass für ein Adorno-Jahr, nicht nur in Frankfurt. Mehrere Biographien erschienen, die bisher letzte kam auf über 1000 Seiten. War da noch etwas Überraschendes möglich, als Goethe-Universität und Schauspielhaus Frankfurt anlässlich des 100. Jubiläums der Stiftungsuniversität ein „Adorno-Projekt“ vereinbarten?
Adorno’s negative dialectics wants to free the thought from the dictates of the system, taking position against the illusion to grasp the essence of reality by logic. Against that false idea of totality, Adorno devises a philosophy of fragment, a logic of disgregation that presupposes a different concept of totality: a fragmented, scattered and conflicting wholeness. The anti systematic thinking of Adorno is configured, however, as a systematic rejection of any systematic formulation: philosophy can at most claiming a pretension to truth by the practice of interpretation. A dialectic configuration of fragments of totality is at stake here: so, the arrangement of such fragments can both produce an image of reality endowed with meaning and also unfold through heterogeneous combinations that are not definitive, but always renewable from time to time. In Adorno’s reflection are so expressed two different instances which are complementary at the same time: on the one hand it represents the critical and negative element against the system and its hybris, on the other hand it expresses the need of the thought to go beyond and overcome that fragmentation, showing how the need of unity of the system is a need of the thought in itself.
Nos Mandamentos, Deus proíbe aos homens tanto a feitura de imagens quanto a pronúncia em vão de Seu nome. Há, portanto, limites rígidos entre as esferas do sagrado e do humano. Este artigo examinará paralelos e divergências entre os pensamentos de dois autores que abordaram essa questão a partir de escolas de pensamento distintas: o filósofo neomarxista judeu Theodor Adorno e o teólogo luterano Eberhard Jüngel.
Sublimity, negativity, and architecture. An essay on negative architecture through Kant to Adorno
(2015)
Architecture defines and consumes people. It exposes them to a multitude of varieties of different aesthetic engagements. Architecture becomes a lived experience. However, this lived experience is always caught in the inner workings of the social and more specifically within cultural ideology. In modern capitalism, culture pervades every aspect of our lives. It shows its presence everywhere from our own homes to the public streets. Culture is everywhere, and architecture is a tool used for both the benefit and detriment of the “culture industry”. Kant speaks of the sublime as a profound moment of reason realizing its ability to overcome its own limits. In this experience is it possible to be completely ravaged and descend into hades and melancholy? Is there a beauty in this descent? More specifically, can architecture become banal or pedestrian, uplifting or depressing? According to Theodor Adorno, our subjectivity is defined by the constant dialectical struggle between freedom and unfreedom (among other things). It is realizing our freedom in the face of our unfreedom that makes us truly able to attain some form of resistance. The sublime experience can be transformed into a spirit of revelation and beautifully allow us to in a way resist the one-dimensional tendencies of modern capitalism. Architecture, which is immersed in our societal being and contributes to many of our own subjective unfreedoms, comes to define our lives as inhabited space. When does architecture produce a sublime experience? Can architecture’s authentic “aura” stand out amongst the reproduced city and produce a sublime feeling that can be a form of resistance against the culture industry? Does Grand Central Terminal provide the key to an architecturally sublime experience? Using dialectical experience and examining the sublime feeling (in a critique of the Kantian sublime) as the key to breaking through the culture industry’s banal architectural hold on our subjectivity, this essay will examine the experience of the sublime as a key to unfolding resistance in the face of the banality of modern architecture in the city and opening our minds to the Great Refusal through the exploration of Grand Central Terminal.