/lit/ - Literature

>>18831816
>Hypothetically, there could be a set of ethics that would have us all kill our past.
The Enlightenment.

I've been reading this shit, three chapters into it.

Basically all I got from it so far is that the Dialectic of the Enlightenment is basically just the difference but unity between Pure Reason and Practical Reason. The latter always works towards a goal, which by definition cannot itself be derived from reason (and is therefore arbitrary), but is given the air of objectivity due to the connection of pure reason. Therefore enlightenment can be used for emancipation or repression, humanism or fascism, with equal immanent justification.

Everything beyond this is intellectual wankery of the highest order and evelotionary psychology/psychoanalysis pseudoscience.

Should I keep reading?

>fascism is the ultimate outcome of reason and logic
hmmmm... really makes you think.....

somebody already wrote it, but maybe you can do better

This is an incredibly difficult read, I feel almost illiterate trying to get through it. Perhaps I am the product of what Adorno and Horkheimer had meticulously addressed. For the purposes of increasing the accessibility of its content, what are some other books/authors/philosophers that are necessary to understand its approach and presentation?

Thoughts on this?

Currently reading pic related. Adorno and Horkeimer vs Kant. Who does /lit/ side with?

>For me, it's Kant, the best philosopher