[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 12 KB, 263x350, Adorno5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3414381 No.3414381[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Anyone here read Adorno or other critical theorist/Marxist Frankfurt School authors?

I'm interested on what your opinions are. I'm starting to get into Frankfurt School after reading a lot of the Situationist International.

>> No.3414392

I briefly looked Adorno over and wasn't very impressed.

He tends to get wrapped up in romantic portrayals (keyword) of ideas and doesn't seem to care much for fact, tending instead to give long rambling phrases filled with as many ten dollar words as he can fit in.

He is one of those theorists right on the edge of diving into complete pseudoscience. But a little dip to sound him out wouldn't be bad

>> No.3414394

You should know Adorno is super dense. I'm reading the c. 700 pages of his Essays on Music and I'm only about 400 pages in after like 3 years. You can only read like a page at a time.

That being said, it's definitely worth it. On Fetish-Character in Music and the Decline of Listening is one of the best essays I've read.

>> No.3414406

>>3414392
I can understand/respect this critique. Many of these theorists are very fond of using jargon. I am very used to this from reading the Situationists.

>>3414394
This is how I felt reading Marx's Capital, and even more so, Debord's The Society of the Spectacle. I'd start, re-read and re-start many times.

>> No.3414409

>>3414381
>I'm interested on what your opinions are.
Drop this and read some science, so you can know what an actual theory looks like. Adorno's work looks like pretentious horseshit by comparison.

>> No.3414412

>>3414409
Someone once suggested Weber to me and I never followed through with that.

>> No.3414413

>>3414406
marx and debord were actually smart and worth reading, unlike adorno

>> No.3414416

>>3414413
Fuck I'm replying to everything.

Yeah, It seems that debord and adorno had similar ideas about the 'culture' industry, but debord's perspective was much more developed and was more deeply rooted in Marxian methodology.

>> No.3414419

>>3414412
Well, I actually meant math or physics or something like that. You know, fields that actually make serious arguments backed by reasoning and evidence.

>> No.3414422

>>3414419
Sociology is a science. Science is not about what your studying, it's how you study it. Using the scientific method and stuff. But I understand what you're getting at.

>> No.3414424

>>3414409
>>3414419
thanks for coming by, /sci/

wait, no, actually, fuck you for coming here just to shit on people about how awesome /sci/ is

fuck you, you're terrible

>> No.3414431

>>3414424
don't be that guy man

>> No.3414438

>>3414394
Do you happen to have a digital version of Philosophy of New Music by any chance? Would much appreciate it.

>> No.3414443

Would any of you consider yourselves Marxists?

>> No.3414447

>>3414443
i would consider myself Adolf Hitler

>> No.3414449

>>3414422
I majored in political science and studied my share of sociology. The term "soft science" is, if anything, generous to describe basically all of the social sciences. The reason why STEM subjects are actually good at what they do is that their subjects allow experiment, reductionism, and prediction, all of which are weak to non-existent when studying social phenomena (for example, it's incredibly frustrating to hear political scientists talk about presidential elections when we can repeat them meaningfully in artificial circumstances). It gets quite a bit worse when you go from economics and political science to sociology and anthropology. It gets much, much, much worse when you get to "theory".

>> No.3414450

>>3414438

Sorry, I haven't been able to find that one online, just his less musical stuff.

>> No.3414452

>>3414447
Fine, followers of Marxist theory.

smart ass.

>> No.3414451

>>3414424
ad hominem

>> No.3414459

>>3414452
ah, i would still consider myself Adolf Hitler

>> No.3414464

>>3414459
and here I thought /lit/ had discussion.

>> No.3414465

>>3414452
OP here, I would. I tell people I'm a libertarian Marxist to avoid the USSR conversation, but really, Marx was an anti-authoritarian.

I'm a Marxist a la Situationist International and other anti-leninists.

>> No.3414476

i've not read much or too much of adorno to judge him, but horkheimer is my model

>> No.3414479

>>3414465
I know the feeling, I'm currently studying french utopian socialism, marxism, and it's affects in governments in my European History class and the point is made that the revolutions in the name of Marxism had the intentions of bettering mankind like with a communist state, but was grossly misinterpreted by the government as a form of totalitarianism.

>> No.3414485

>>3414476
The only thing I've really read from Adorno was Dialectic of Enlightenment, and I'm very sure that was co-authored by Horkheimer.

>> No.3414490

>>3414479
True. Marx himself disliked the french socialists for being Utopian. I'd advise you to read Engle's "Socialism: Utopian and Scientific". I think it'd fit nicely into what you are studying.

>> No.3414487

>>3414485
haha that's basically what i read as well, as well as quite a bit of cultural industry etc. have not read negative dialectics.

>> No.3414498

>>3414487
I know that Dialectic of Enlightenment introduces and explains the concept, but I never looked into Negative Dialectics. Is it a follow up/delve deeper into the concept or something like that?

>> No.3414508

>>3414490
For anyone interested in reading it themselves.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/ma/works/1880/soc-utop/index.htm

>> No.3414518

>>3414508
I buy most of my books at this collectivley owned anarchist bookstore near my house. It's really cheap.

I forgot how expensive books are. Yeah, download it. I myself really need the book in my hands.

>> No.3414534

>>3414498
yea i've no idea now. you can look it up on sep

>> No.3414592

>>3414419
I studied math. I was unimpressed. Math is overrated. I switched to literature. They are the same thing, but literature at least used to be done by people with some taste.

When mathematicians talk about elegance it's the chess player's move elegance. Think about that.

>> No.3414605

>>3414381
Adorno is good and worth it.
Him and Benjamin are the only two philosophers that have made a step forward since Hegel.

Don't trust people that tell you that Adorno is overrated, they probably don't understand him.

Read Minima Moralia first. Then the part on Mass culture at the end of Dialectics of Enlightment.

>> No.3414638

>>3414592
I'm the same. I'm switching into Liberal Arts next semester. I've already taken all the economics and all that other shit. I'm just sick of math and the superiority complex it radiates.

>> No.3414671

>>3414449
reductionism doesn't account for complex interdependent behavior