I've only skimmed the lecture and will have re-read it, but from my dark post-Marxist point of view he might actually be too uncritical of Marxism. I think he agrees with most of what you say here. What he rejects are mainly (1) the proletariat as the revolutionary subject and universal class, and (2) the teleology of history. (And probably (3) a strict economic determinism (whether or not that is actually Marx's position)).

He agrees with a lot of historical materialism and, I think, buys right into Marx's analysis of alienation, the commodity, and exploitation. — Jamal

You're right that Adorno's approach does little for working-class organization, but that's because he probably sees the extraction of surplus-value as one aspect or way of looking at the more generally alienating and dominating nature of capitalist society. That is, he de-prioritizes it. — Jamal

Fair. I was very much reacting to the text because I'm used to having to defend Marxism -- and I suspect we just have a slightly different set of experiences which can account for what is basically an aesthetic preference. I agree with his criticisms, but felt like I needed to point out positives since that is my habit.

But I can understand the Marxist assessment that Adorno is effectively regressive. If the working-class remains the agent of change, his thinking is not much use, or counter-productive. That said, I think his hatred of capitalism exceeds that of Marx, so I'd say yes, he's definitely worth reading even from that Marxist point of view. — Jamal

Here I think there's a certain agreement then, too -- because I tend to take the intersectional approach, and by so doing I can point to more than the labor struggle as examples that I have in mind: Not just the Soviet Union, but also the labor movement. And not just the United States' labor movement, but also the modern Chinese labor movement. And not just labor, but also race. And not just race, but also sex.

But I know this is not at all orthodox, or Marx's position, or what Adorno is addressing. I just see Marx's analysis as influencing a lot of the disciplines which inform these various struggles in addition to the obvious, direct applications such as Lenin's and the labor movement's.

Still, I'll not digress too much on this as we go forward. I'll accept Adorno's appraisal and keep trucking along -- I got it out of me now :D

EDIT: Also you might want to have a look at the Adorno-Popper debate, part of the "positivism dispute" in the social sciences, in which Adorno seems to have been put in the position of defending Marxism. It might supply a different picture of his relationship with Marxism. I used ChatGPT to produce a summary of it because there's a lot to read and I've got enough on my plate. I can post it here if you're interested. — Jamal

Heh, naw. I'll just slot it into the eternal List -- things that could be interesting to visit, but for now I'll stay focused on the lectures and ND.

EDIT 2: A personal reflection. What strikes me now is that the Frankfurt School were facing up to the failure of working class revolution and the absorption of the working class into bourgeois society and culture (which was not the case in Marx's time), long before I was born, and yet it's only in the last ten years or so that I've faced up to this in my own thinking. I imagine you might say that they were over-reacting, perhaps understandably given the world situation at the time; personally I think their disillusionment still stands (but I don't particularly want to infect you with it). — Jamal

I can see it either way -- I think I was just reacting because I'm in the habit of pointing out good things, given how unpopular Marx tends to be. Reading the criticisms I think he's correct about Marx and various failings of Marxism -- I certainly wouldn't venture to say something as stupid as he didn't understand it! :D

But, I'll keep the apologism reigned in.

In LND 5 I get the sense that Adorno is missing out on a lot of what makes Marxism so great -- while some of his predictions are false what he offers is the explication of a worldview from the philosophical perspective such that one need not adopt bourgeois philosophy, and while his utopian visions have yet to be achieved Marx's contributions to a proletariat philosophy have been invaluable as a basis for reflection. He takes Rousseau's notion of the social contract to include the economic flows wherein people, born free, came to live in chains. His articulation between slave and worker, and the relationshiop between worker/owner is invaluable for analyzing power relationships, and not just in an academic sense -- but in terms of real world organizing.

Without articulating how selling one's labor-time is exploitative, for instance, there'd be no practical political basis for workers to struggle on the shop floor. Rather, and this did happen, they ought join liberal societies of association for workers rather than disrupt the flow of commerce.

But if the relationship in which exchange is freely taking place is exploitative unto itself then this gives political justification -- as in an articulatable standard that could hold across people as something they can consistently demand together -- for industrial agitation.

But, I gather this will be a frequent point of thinking for me -- because it seems Adorno is trying to save what's worth saving, whereas I'm pretty much just a Marxist who doesn't see it as a doomed project or something which has been falsified, but a proper political philosophy for the working class which has aided many sorts of the have-nots in their struggle to have.

EDIT: On the flip-side, his criticisms are also very valuable -- I'm not disagreeing with them so much as reacting to them from my own perspective.

Hrrmm -- now how to get it to where "if everyone wins then you're the extra-special winner"

Candidly, I encourage those who don't wish to compete not to compete. Races are easier to win with fewer contestants. — Hanover

Would that the race were so provincial that one could opt out of it -- as it is I'd bet on convincing the guys at the back it'll be easier to just take the prize than win the race.

Finished LND 4

I noticed, thanks to y'alls efforts, how "systemization" isn'tis a contrast-class, but one that isn't as described as "System" in this lecture. "System" is something that philosophy at one time pursued and should continue to preserve that spirit, whereas systemization is a pre-figured tabulating system with a bucket labeled "Not of interest", or something along those lines -- I get the idea that given we cannot have a true System in the manner which philosophy once pursued we have, in order to fulfill that need for a system, replaced it with systemization which has the appearance of a system without any of the drive for what motivated the philosophical system in the first place: not just totalizing, but a grasping of the universe, and with the end of LND 4 -- not just a grasping, but rather a grasping of all that is such that human beings come to live free lives.

So "System" is that which cannot be achieved, but likewise for Adorno there's an impulse in there that he seems to believe is necessary in order for philosophy to progress at all.

Fair.

Since people have exploited others for forever it's not inhuman, but that's inhumane in the sense of humanism or wanting more than this violence.

It feels like a cheat to me. Looking at my own life, I can see that pretty much all the problems I have are my own responsibility. — T Clark

By naming an inhuman system I certainly don't mean to erase personal responsibility, only de-emphasize it as a cultural norm. Of course we all have to grow up and deal with consequences.

But I'll go back to the distinction between kings and CEO's -- isn't capitalism at least less inhuman than feudal systems?

In which case, while your problems are certainly your problems and only up to you to deal with, there are still inhuman systems we live within while we make those choices.

Capital, which I prefer to feudalism, is still inhuman in the sense that it survives by exploiting other humans -- you see that much, yes? Or no?

I don't live in an "inhuman system," — T Clark

Here is where I feel closest to -- I think not only you, but I and @Martijn and everyone here lives in an inhuman system.

What else to call a society which is a world bully and doubles down on the destruction of future generations in the name of winning today?

I am interested in the subconscious aspects here in relation to secular and non-secular rituals. — I like sushi

I suppose my thought is that the non-secular isn't so different from the secular here -- the ritual of cleansing, of dealing with our animal side within the confines of social expectation, seems difficult to distinguish from the anthropological angle.

All cultures have various rituals surrounding the body, and in this sense I think that toilets are anthropologically interesting.

The reason I'm hesitant with "ablution" is that you're drawing a distinction between secular/non-secular, whereas I'd say the ritual is about the same -- just with different words and beliefs.

Heh -- I'd say that if you're after the anthropological angle then questions of comparisons between Romans and plumbing are too big picture.

And "ablutions" may not be the right word. It depends on what we're talking about, rather than Big Ideas.

I do think that there's a relationship between how people decide to deal with the facts of being biological creatures who eat and poop, and one's culture. But I have no idea how to investigate that in a serious fashion.

I'm wondering if he has the right tools for this. — Banno

I get the sense that he was tired of having to prove that he had the right tools for this from the first two lectures -- I felt he was expressing exasperation at being hounded by questions that he felt didn't matter after all, that the tools presented were not inferior but not even applicable -- a screwdriver offered for a wire-nut for instance.

What good is politics if it doesn't serve the common man? — Martijn

It's good-for maintaining claims on property.

Huh. Well look at that. That's cool. Thanks for sharing!

There's a dude I follow in the social medias who does geographic and political science work on waste-water, and I've seen him express sentiments similar to what you're alluding to. Which indicates to me that there's probably something there, though I wouldn't have a clue as to how to go about doing the research or who to read to start getting a foothold into the thought.

Morning thought -- the structure of a symphony may provide a good analogue to the dialectical pattern.

I listened to Beethoven's 7th this morning to confirm, and I think there's something to the analogy still. The basic structure I'm referring to is that a symphony is composed of four movements, and a standard structure for the composer for the movements is 1: Main theme, 2: Minor theme, 3: Synthesis of the themes, 4: Progression and cap

Furthermore, the notion of counter-point in symphony has a kind of mirror to the notion of reflection between moments in dialectics.

This by way of offering a form for understanding dialectics which is sensible and yet not logical in the strict, modern logical sense. At most it's an informal logics from that viewpoint -- though from Adorno's viewpoint I imagine that the formal logics are a diversion from what's proper to philosophical thought, at best.

This quote from LND 3 was exciting to read because it confirmed a lot of what I felt about Hegel:

Thus once the identity of two contradictory concepts has been
reached, or at least asserted in the antithesis, as in the most famous
case of all, the identity of Nothing with Being, this is followed by a
further refl ection to the effect that, indeed, these are identical, I have
indeed brought them together – Being, as something entirely undefi ned, is also Nothing. However, to put it quite crudely, they are not
actually entirely identical. The thought that carries out the act of
identifi cation always does violence to every single concept in the
process. And the negation of the negation is in fact nothing other
than the α
¸
να′ µνησις, the recollection, of that violence, in other words
the acknowledgement that, by conjoining two opposing concepts, I
have on the one hand bowed to a necessity implicit in them, while
on the other hand I have done them a violence that has to be rectifi ed. And truth to tell, this rectifi cation in the act of identifi cation is
what is always intended by the Hegelian syntheses.17 This structure
– we are speaking here of a structure of dialectics – this structure is
not something that can always be strictly sustained, and I know very
well that you could show me quite different structures in Hegel’s
Logic.

That the dialectic, in a sense, does a violence to the concepts of Being and Nothingness in their equation and sublation, and that this pattern is one of thought -- that the positing will bring about another positing, and these things together form a moment -- these are things I've tried to find ways to say and so it's something of a relief to see a Big Cheese say similar things to my sympathies. Makes me think maybe I got something out of the reading after all, while the suspicion the entire time was that it was nothing but my own imagination.

EDIT: And, generally, LND 3 felt clearer than 1 and 2 in terms of what Adorno is doing because he's less responding to criticisms to get his audience to listen to why his project is worth listening to and beginning to differentiate himself from Hegel, as well as ends with a kind of transcendental question: Is philosophy without system possible? And Negative Dialectics is meant to answer in the affirmative, but also without arbitrarity -- where philosophy has a proper authority.

Cheers.

We have similar views of the world, especially with respect to rejecting competition and achievement as markers of worth.

Can our choices ever be free from determinants, constraints and consequences? — Truth Seeker

Sure. Just choose the other determinant, constraint, or consequence.

We don't get to create the whole world out of nothing, but we can choose amongst the options available which are constrained by various determinants, constraints, and consequences, but choice still remains.

To be honest I think I made a mistake and jumped the gun -- I mixed up those who had already submitted with those who I had heard were going to submit. It made me anxious so I thought it best to say something "just in case"

but about the lack of validity in the argument. — Banno

We agree on the validity of the argument.

To get from an "is" to an "ought", logically, there needs to be some premise which connects the two verbs. This need not even be ontologically significant. Or logically significant!

The is/ought distinction needs more attention than is given here. "Life is good" -- ok, sure. all of it? in every case? all the time? And if so what is the difference between the reference of "Life" and "...is bad"? Is anything bad if Life is Good?

Well I appreciate it cuz it's helping me.

Much easier to start a new thinker with some easier to digest thoughts than the thinker himself.

Happy May Day, everyone.

I think some essays have been removed from my PM -- but at present I have @Sam26 and @Bob Ross 's submissions.

I wanted to remind people that the end of this month is the last day for submissions, and also note how I believe I've lost some submissions in my PM's -- so if you're not either Sam or Bob, please resubmit and I'll make sure to preserve the essay outside of the PM.

Addendum: I think I've heard people say they have interest in submitting, and have mistaken that with submissions. I look forward to more submissions!

Nothing to add yet, just reporting in to say I'm caught up. Everyone's essays and reflections are helping to read along. EDIT: (not much to say yet other than it looks like Lecture 3 is a continuation of the argument from Lecture 2, and neat to see him further differentiating himself from Hegel. I'm still in "absorb" mode)

I'm going to remember this as a good example for explaining symmetry.

Whining rotter, reporting in.

We assigned ourselves a lot, and from someone whose done the same in the past and failed I'm guessing being gentle with ourselves will get us to the end -- bursts of energy and some quiet isn't bad, and with one another to motivate us to go along I'm sure we'll finish this one.

I hope nobody minds these mini-essays; they help me to get to grips with the reading, and I hope to respond to others later. — Jamal

I love them! Since this is new material for me I don't feel able to put my thoughts into structures or find relevant resources to bounce off of so it's very helpful.

My intuition is that it's kind of a red herring. I think that for all three of these philosophers, formal logic, which Kant called general logic, is basic, uninteresting, and mostly uncontroversial. But when they talk about logic they use the term more expansively. When K and H in particular talk about it they're talking about how reason actually operates within their systems, and H in particular pushes against general logic by refusing to go along with Kant's identification of the antinomies in the transcendental dialectic as logical failures, but rather regarding them as examples of some higher kind of "logic" (dialectics)

Adorno does something similar: he is looking for a logic, or better put, a rationality, that is better than mere formal logic. I mean, not as a replacement but as an essential supplement. (I think he also wants to just ignore the developments of logic from Frege onwards, probably thinking of them as either irrelevant or else as examples of instrumental rationality). — Jamal

That makes lots of sense to me.

I tend to think the concerns about Hegel's violations of formal logic are exaggerated or misguided, but I'm sure there is a lot more to say about it. — Jamal

It's also something of a hobby-horse of mine.

What I would not say is that interesting uses of contradiction, even if they don't fit some formal definition of contradiction, do not -- unto itself -- undermine a philosophy. Too many negations -- what I'd say is one can use contradiction in interesting ways without at the same time undermining your philosophy. The "formal" concerns arise, but may not be interesting or relevant.

And I can see just treating the topic with respect to the reading group as a side-thread -- for purposes of this thread the questions about formalization of logic and dialectics, while an interesting question, is not what's being pursued here. For Adorno there is no such bar to hop over, and here he is demonstrating his method on his own terms.

eh, I can read German well enough to check for trolling, but I have no faith in myself beyond that. I'd just be guessing based on my understanding of the English I think. (Once upon a time I made a mistake with respect to spot checking -- not that the other translation is wrong, just started to notice how the Pluhar translation has a particular interpretation which doesn't match the others -- not in drastic ways, only on those points where people start saying what Kant *really* meant lol)

Cool. If not no worries -- I think it's a huge topic that I return to all the time and then get lost in. :D

Yeah it’s interestingly odd that he openly states that a motif — maybe we can say a theme — of his philosophy is working out why he hates synthesis so much, as if it's a journey of self-discovery. As if his personal antipathy to synthesis is a clue to what's bad about it. — Jamal

Heh. If the translation is giving the right meaning I'd quote it as an example of how philosophy is often a work on the self, even when directed to other ends and not emphasizing that.

I also really liked Adorno's example of nuclear weapons: — Jamal

I was hesitant but upon rethinking I can see it with respect to international relations -- them's with nukes get more power so countries want nukes in order to have power and these are the very things which would make the pursuit of power pointless -- because we'll all die.

Yeh, fair enough.

Also, more thoughts on the same subject --

I'm wondering to what extent Adorno is distinguishing himself from Hegel and Kant's conception of logic, and whether or not his negative dialectics would be read in a sort of the logic of objects sense, or propositional logic, or what-have-you.

For instance here I'm thinking about how for Kant the form of a judgment is--

I think = "X", where "X" is of the form "A is B", which themselves are governed by the categories in some fashion. So when we have "I think"red balloon float"" what we mean, logically, is "I think there is an object which is red" and "I think there is an object which is a balloon" and "I think there is an object which floats" and "I think these are all the very same object" (EDIT: Just to give an idea of what I'm thinking through -- the forms of thought and how we render them into sentences here and how Adorno means what he means)

And how we now have Adorno's rendition of Hegel as well as his own account of himself to compare all this with -- getting a sense for "What do we include in the category "logic"?"

EDIT: FWIW, I'm not satisfied with that at all. I remain interested because these are the things I find hard to articulate.

Yes.

There's only one thing that I can't let go of -- I think that judgments of the form "A is B, A = B" are the identity statements, but I'm not sure that Adorno's claiming that all predicative judgments are secretly of this form.

But yes to everything else. Just rereading the paragraph where he's talking about this:

.Any such predicative judgement that A is B, that A = B, contains a highly emphatic claim...etc.

So I read the subject of the sentence as all judgments of the form A is B, rather than stating that all judgments fit the form.

But this is very minor. I find your interpretation helpful in reviewing the lecture, and find no qualms in it.

What I'm latching onto at the moment is the bit where Adorno says he is de-emphasizing the role of synthesis in the dialectical process, and..."one motif of such a negative dialectics is to try to find out why I resist the concept of synthesis so strongly"

I'm not sure that everything must be contradiction, but rather there are positive uses for a dialectics rather than it being what is often thought: a fanciful way of talking that can be reduced to a logic of identity.

The capitalist example rings true to me -- people who don't own property and have to sell their labor to live don't have the same material interests as those who own property and hire people in order to direct their labor for exploitation. Master and Slave from Hegel is another example that makes sense to me of the dialectical relationship -- both defining and being in conflict with one another.

We start with the Lectures on Negative Dialectics (LND), which is based on recordings of Adorno's lectures in 1965-66, just after he'd completed the six-year task of writing the book. The lectures took place at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt. Unfortunately it looks like there were no extant recordings or transcripts for lectures 11 to 25, so we only have some notes for those. Even so, I think the first ten work as a nice introduction to ND, not least because they're much less condensed and difficult than his formal writings. — Jamal

Caught up to LND Lecture 2. I'm fine with just doing the first 10 then hopping over. The SEP and LND offer some exciting reasons to keep going -- not least of which is that by hearing him contrast himself to Hegel it gives me a better feel for Hegel (and, in these first bits I've read, it appears we share a suspicion of Hegel's claims to the Absolute Method, so Adorno's treatment of dialectics is easier for me to swallow)

I've studied Hegel, and I very much doubt that Adorno scholarship is in some way dependent on Hegel scholarship. "Studied" in the way an autodidact studies, so not a class, but I've at least touched The Science of Logic and finished The Phenomenology of Spirit/Mind once upon a time.

So a real Hegel scholar would school us. And perhaps @Count Timothy von Icarus or @Tobias could provide some guardrails in interpretation, since my reading isn't broad and largely motivated by understanding Marx.

Sounds good to me to start with it, unless you'd like me to prepare ahead of time.

Fair.

Cool.


I found a pdf in the wild world of the net.

Cool.

Start a thread. Minima Moralia? Or one of the others you mentioned?