300 Sozialwissenschaften
Refine
Year of publication
- 2015 (28) (remove)
Language
- Portuguese (11)
- Spanish (8)
- English (6)
- Italian (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (28)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (28)
Keywords
- Recognition (5)
- Reconhecimento (4)
- Axel Honneth (3)
- Critical Theory (2)
- Critical theory (2)
- Dialética negativa (2)
- Education (2)
- Educação (2)
- domination (2)
- society (2)
Institute
- Philosophie (28) (remove)
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.
Este trabajo es el resultado de la investigación Capital Humano como factor de crecimiento Económico, en el cual se desarrolla una reflexión crítica sobre la teoría del Capital Humano, el abordaje se hace desde la teoría económica y el análisis tiene como referente los planteamientos de la Escuela de Frankfurt, especialmente en lo que tiene que ver con el uso desde la perspectiva de la racionalidad. Desde el punto de vista metodológico se trata de una investigación cualitativa, basada en un proceso de carácter interpretativo y comprensivo de tipo Histórico Hermenéutico, el método utilizado responde a una finalidad de descripción, interpretación, argumentación, que permitan avanzar hacia la comprensión de las temáticas estudiadas en un proceso dialéctico. Como resultado del proceso investigativo se hace un análisis de la instrumentalización de la educación, la formación, la capacidad de trabajo y el estado de salud del hombre, y aún de su propio ser, las cuales se consideran de la misma naturaleza que una maquina y quedan cosificadas al ser convertidas en mercancías comerciales que se venden en el mercado, lo que determina la posibilidad de colocarle un precio pagado en el mercado a la productividad de un tipo de trabajo determinado, a la acción del propio hombre y el desarrollo de sus capacidades superiores que deberían permitirle contribuir al logro de una sociedad mejor y una vida más digna.
Este artigo analisa a crítica de Adorno à ontologia de Heidegger. Para tal, utiliza como leitmotiv a interpretação heideggeriana de Kant. Procuraremos mostrar que para Adorno a edificação da ontologia fundamental a partir da filosofia de Kant é uma interpretação indevida desta. Por fim, procura apontar uma possível saída na filosofia de Adorno para o problema da necessidade de fundamentação do discurso filosófico. Tal saída passa pela constatação da importância da arte para a construção da universalidade na filosofia.
Desde Dialéctica de la Ilustración hasta Dialéctica negativa, el materialismo filosófico llevado adelante por T. W. Adorno ha ubicado en un lugar central de sus reflexiones la problemática de lo corporal, poniéndolo en discusión directa tanto con el psicoanálisis y su teoría de las pulsiones, así como con las diferentes versiones del idealismo. La reflexión acerca de este ámbito, permitirá exponer tanto el carácter represivo de la sociedad; también, la posibilidad de una ética verdaderamente democrática.
O presente artigo visa a fazer algumas anotações sobre educação, emancipação e crítica social no pensamento de Theodor W. Adorno. Esses temas se relacionam direta e indiretamente nos escritos de Adorno e assinalam a coerência epistemológica da sua teoria crítica em relação a ambos. Desse modo, a questão que colocamos é a seguinte: como compreender a tensão presente entre as necessidades de uma educação para a emancipação e as condições para efetivá-la? Essa questão nos encaminha para outra: é possível relacionar, nos textos adornianos, uma perspectiva de se pensar a educação para a emancipação, articulada a uma crítica social no contexto atual? Primeiramente, fazemos uma breve incursão no que consiste o pensamento contra a barbárie em Adorno, sobretudo, a partir do sentido de Auschwitz como símbolo da relação entre civilização e barbárie que o autor faz. Num segundo momento, nos confrontamos com a questão da formação cultural na Teoria da Semiformação, cujo escopo do texto é apontar os limites da formação cultural e consequentemente os limites da educação no âmbito do capitalismo avançado. Por fim, pretendemos discutir a ideia de "crítica social" em Adorno, articulada aos temas anteriores, isto é, apontar algumas ponderações para uma educação contra a barbárie e a semiformação frentes aos desafios impostos pela sociedade atual.
‘Being with oneself in the other’ is a well-known formula that Hegel uses to characterize the basic relation of subjective freedom. This phrase points to the fact that subjects can only come to themselves if they remain capable of going beyond themselves. This motif also plays a significant role in Hegel’s philosophy of art. The article further develops this motif by exploring the extent to which this polarity of selfhood and otherhood is also characteristic of states of aesthetic freedom. It does not offer an exegesis of Hegel’s writings, but attempts to remain as close as possible to the spirit of Hegel’s philosophy – with some help from Kant and Adorno. The argument begins with some key terms on the general state of subjective freedom in order to distinguish it from the particular role of aesthetic freedom and then, finally, drawing again on Hegel, works out the sense in which aesthetic freedom represents an important variant of freedom.
In my paper, I intend firmly to criticize Taubes' interpretation of Benjamin's Theology as a modern form of Gnosticism (Benjamin as a modern Marcionit). In a positive way, I sustain rather the thesis that Benjamin's Messianism is in close connection with his conception of reason (“the sharpened axe of reason”) and, in particularly, with the paradoxical unity of Mysticism and Enlightenment, which, according to the famous definition of Adorno, distinguishes his thought. As a radically anti-magical and anti-mythical conception of the historical time, Benjamin's Messianism has to be considered as an original synthesis between motifs of the mystical tradition of the Jewish Kabbalah and motifs belonging to the rationalist tradition of the Jewish philosophy. Moving from Cohen's standpoint of a continuity between Maimonides and Kant, I consider therefore the affinity between his messianic conception of history and that of Benjamin. Both, Benjamin and Cohen, share, together with the reference to the a priori of the idea of justice, the reference to the Kantian connection between rationality and hope. Hence originates the non-eschatological Messianism of both. Motives of difference between Cohen and Benjamin’s messianic idea are to be found, conversely, in their different way to consider the idea of "the infinite task" and of its infinite fulfillment in the context of the historical time. Unlike the fundamentally ethical interpretation that Cohen gives of this relationship, Benjamin understands it ontologically in a monadological sense. This explains the constitutive relationship that exists, in Benjamin's philosophy, between Origin, Fragment and Revelation. In the light of this connection, Benjamin's messianic understanding of the historical time exceeds the Scholemian alternative between a restorative and a utopian conception of Messianism. Consequently, the Krausian motto “Ursprung ist das Ziel” (“The Origin is the Goal”) displays its truth in the idea of the messianic fragment or spark.
In the nineties, Habermas redirected his political writings to the post-national constellation (global and European) and the possibilities of a society politically integrated through transnational democracy (or post-national democracy). This thematic reorientation took place on two fronts. The first one is the global transnational democracy, which includes the impacts of the economic globalization on national democracies, as well the proposal for a political Constitution for a pluralistic world society, based on a constitutionalization of international law. The second one is the European transnational democracy, which includes the redefinition of the political profile of European welfare state for an economic liberal profile, as well the paradox of democratic technocracy operated by European institutions and the proposal to overcome the decoupled technocratic policy model. This paper will address only this last topic, describing the reasons of the democratic deficit and the consequent delay of European political Union. Despite numerous reforms, the technocratic policies have not eliminated the discrepancy between centralization and democratization, and mistakenly indicate another direction further reinforcing the problem of European undemocratic institutions. In contrast, Habermas argues that the democratic deficit could only be overcome replacing the technocratic approach by a deeper democratization of European institutions.