100 Philosophie und Psychologie
Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (5) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (4)
- Doctoral Thesis (1)
Language
- German (1)
- English (1)
- Italian (1)
- Portuguese (1)
- slo (1)
Has Fulltext
- yes (5)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (5)
Keywords
- Adorno (5) (remove)
Institute
Die vorliegende Arbeit zielt auch darauf ab, aus der Analyse des Konzepts der Mimesis eine Reihe von theoretischen Kanten zu gewinnen, die als normative oder transformierende Gesichtspunkte betrachtet werden können. Das heißt, Standpunkte, auf die die Theorien der Gegenwart noch zurückgreifen können, nicht nur um eine diagnostische Analyse des sozialen Ganzen vorzunehmen, sondern auch um Vorschläge zur Veränderung des sozialen Charakters zu unterbreiten. Diese Möglichkeit kann noch als normativer Ansatz in Adornos Werk bezeichnet werden. Solche theoretischen Perspektiven sind notwendige Folgen der Analyse des Begriffs der Mimesis.
The Adornian theories are still a relevant theoretical and educational model, even fifty years after his death. The article develops exactly this aspect in many directions and it lingers on one of the masterpieces of the master of Frankfurt, Minima moralia, making use of hermeneutic critical thinking.
Neste artigo trataremos de entender quais foram as principais propostas de Theodor W. Adorno, filósofo alemão e membro da Escola de Frankfurt, para a educação de seu tempo. A partir de uma análise, mesmo que marginal, de parte do conjunto substancial de seus escritos, palestras, entrevistas e debates, sobretudo da obra em conjunto com Horkheimer, “Dialética do Esclarecimento” e dos ensaios de “Educação e Emancipação”, este texto evidencia os pressupostos do pensamento adorniano, pautado na teoria crítica da sociedade, e elucida suas reflexões na tentativa de propor que a educação fosse mais política e baseada no esclarecimento e na emancipação. Modicamente, buscamos pensar a atualidade e a urgência de suas reflexões para o campo educacional contemporâneo.
Th. W. Adorno’s aesthetics represents a comprehensive reflection on a number of important topics in aesthetic research. Among them is the issue of the aesthetic experience generated by the beauty of nature. In the perspective of Adorno’s theory, the experience of natural beauty is described as a quality that forms in an immanent relation to the historical and social reality of humans. In the first place, one can observe the fundamental dependence of natural beauty on the degree of social domination of nature. By failing to reflect on this social mediation, the experience of natural beauty appears to be immediate and creates the deceptive fantasy of the primordial form of nature. At the same time, however, Adorno uncovers a positive potential in the experience of natural beauty – it lies in the ability to transcend a power-based subjectivity that reduces reality to the substrate of the domination. By means of the transcendence of subjectivity, the experience of natural beauty opens up the possibility to perceive and approach reality in the unreduced fullness of its qualities while also anticipating a reconciliation of man with nature in an allegorical way. The aim of my study is to describe the sketched aspects of the experience of natural beauty.
The events of 1968/69 initiated a dispute between Adorno and Marcuse over the (alleged) separation of theory and praxis. While Marcuse “stood at the barricades” Adorno sought recluse in the “ivory tower”. Marcuse and German students perceived Adorno’s move as departure from fundamental postulates of critical theory as laid down in Horkheimer’s 1937 essay. Adorno died amidst the process of clarifying his differences with Marcuse and thus the “unlimited discussions” between the two remain unfinished. This paper sets to examine how both Marcuse and Adorno remained dedicated to the unity of theory and praxis, albeit in different ways. I argue that Adorno did not separate theory and praxis; instead, he perceived the gap between critical theory and concrete historical situation. Adorno rejected simple and unreflective translation of theory into praxis. Hence his attempt to recalibrate critical theory. Marcuse’s and Adorno’s differences lie in their different evaluation of the student movement and this (mis)evaluation was context related. My second argument is that Marcuse/Adorno disagreement is partly caused by the absence of the two from the concrete historical context.