Did my PhD on Adorno in 1981 . Effected heavily by Horkheimer and Adorno I was enamored by The negative dialectic . My title. “ The Role of the critic and the logic of criticism in Hegel, Bruno Baruta and The Frankfurt School “ that was my dissertation from The American University . I gave up philosophy to pursue a successful career as a tennis teacher , keeping critical thinking as the lode star . In this pursuit I became very successful as a tennis teacher , but I ruined my ability to have. Areal understanding of philosophy as an ontological reduction . In my life I did not understand the negativity in the dialectic as always a positive . I rejected the import of practical due diligence in favor of theory as alienated , and stressed that my children stay away from instrumental mistake , not realizing that the entire schemata of negative dialects is a misappropriation of the dialectic imported from The Indic civilization without without understanding that the unity of theory and practice are already coexisting. The miseffects of The Frankfurt school and its charm has permeated into the likes of. Derrida and Foucault . Now it has turned into woke philosophy. Reduction of philosophy to pure critical criticism ala Bruno Bauer is too much a part of Adorno. I supported Adorno over Heidegger but now I believe I was in my youthful error , where Heidegger and Adorno needed to be understood as two poles of the dialectic. Adorno is quite narcissistic in isolating the German fascism as a unique event in history . My life was very effected with my non critical approach to the very presupposing the veridicality of “ critical thinking”. This flaw comes from Hegel’ s misunderstanding of the dialectic as a pure negativity or struggle. I now understand that the very designation of the dialectic as always as a struggle is the atavistic urge to be theological , in a world of evil . The Frankfurt school Ned’s a reevaluation where negativity is to be understood as a positive. Science is not different from art in two aspects, one that due diligence is essential to both,secondly a pleasure one gets from a passion to to be dispassionate . I am reworking the uncritically established premises of critical theory , in my real life. Yielding to Heidegger in infringing the first person I think it is necessary to see the human being as an ontological reality confronting the world as a possibility.In other words back to Parmenides , and bypassing Aristotle , something that the phenomenologists are not able to do. They too have a theological respect for Aristotle who ruined philosophy forever , never giving relevance to mind experiments , that are essential to philosophy. Adorno and Athens Frankfurt school need to be sublated . Any suggestions?

I am with Michael Heinrich in his assesment of Adorno's negativity, the alternative to capitalism needs a vision, it needs an articulation, it needs to be discussed openly and not in a coy 'maybe someday' kind of way. It is extremely dangerous to make precise discussion about the future society a taboo. A project the right and the critical theory tradition seem to share with one another. I like the poetic pure negation of revolt without hope as much as the next man but when the very next day all we have to look forward to is our practical return to cold capitalist social life, the need for a totalized POSITIVE alternative becomes very apparent. I wish what was taken serious as worthy of intellectual public consideration was the rich history of libertarian communism Pannekoek, Mattick etc. That being said super interesting talk!

Well that was... productive

Exhilaratingly depressing.

i wish we got to see the adorno pics at the end

I don't think they know.....it seems..

Lord Almighty

Das Unbehagen in der Kritik.

lol is that a decorative pomegranate sitting there?

Very insightful

"Critical theory, Horkheimer and Adorno would later emphasize in their new preface in April 1969, “holds that the core of truth is historical, rather than an unchanging constant to be set against the movement of history.” There are no universals, but now there are no teleologies either. In fact, two decades after they wrote the book, they already had different views of the correct interpretation of their historical circumstances. “In not a few places,” they write in 1969, “the reality of our times is formulated in a way no longer appropriate to contemporary experience.”38 Critical analysis, in this sense, has to be punctual and historical and can be valid only in its immediate, concrete historical context." Harcourt, BE 2020 "Critique and Praxis" p67 In Harcourt's discussion of Jaeggi, he says, "The thrust of her project, instead, is negative critique: not so much to identify good forms of life, but rather to judge the weaknesses and irrationalities of particular forms of life. Jaeggi’s project is not intended to dictate one good way of living, or even to narrow it down to a handful of ways, but rather to identify a mode of critique that can show when modes of life are not living up to the problems that they are intended to address." p150. Is this mode not deconstruction? Harcourt quotes Jaeggi, “If we follow my investigation, there is no positive answer to the question of what makes a form of life a good or adequate form of life. However, there is a negative, indirect answer: failing forms of life suffer from a collective practical reflexive deficit, from a blockage to learning. In other words, they are not able to solve the problems they face or to perceive the crisis experiences to which they are exposed in appropriate ways as experiences and to transform themselves accordingly.”85

nice ästhetics!

Terrible lecture.

Kind of convenient this whole Adorno line, since philosophy cannot attempt or has to renounce the quest for totality, it's useless to posit anything, so the negative will suffice, and the line between praxis and theory is false, so what I Adorno or any other fat-bottomed mandarin does in form of criticism of what exists and is thought is bliss and best. If ever a Brahmin came up with a better shastra