"Dialectic of Enlightenment" is undoubtedly the most influential publication of the Frankfurt School of Critical Theory. Written during the Second World War and circulated privately, it appeared in a printed edition in Amsterdam in 1947. "What we had set out to do," the authors write in the Preface, "was nothing less than to explain why humanity, instead of entering a truly human state, is sinking into a new kind of barbarism." Yet the work goes far beyond a mere critique of contemporary events. Historically remote developments, indeed, the birth of Western history and of subjectivity itself out of the struggle against natural forces, as represented in myths, are connected in a wide arch to the most threatening experiences of the present. The book consists in five chapters, at first glance unconnected, together with a number of shorter notes. The various analyses concern such phenomena as the detachment of science from practical life, formalized morality, the manipulative nature of entertainment culture, and a paranoid behavioral structure, expressed in aggressive anti-Semitism, that marks the limits of enlightenment. The authors perceive a common element in these phenomena, the tendency toward self-destruction of the guiding criteria inherent in enlightenment thought from the beginning. Using historical analyses to elucidate the present, they show, against the background of a prehistory of subjectivity, why the National Socialist terror was not an aberration of modern history but was rooted deeply in the fundamental characteristics of Western civilization. Adorno and Horkheimer see the self-destruction of Western reason as grounded in a historical and fateful dialectic between the domination of external nature and society. They trace enlightenment, which split these spheres apart, back to its mythical roots. Enlightenment and myth, therefore, are not irreconcilable opposites, but dialectically mediated qualities of both real and intellectual life. "Myth is already enlightenment, and enlightenment reverts to mythology." This paradox is the fundamental thesis of the book. This new translation, based on the text in the complete edition of the works of Max Horkheimer, contains textual variants, commentary upon them, and an editorial discussion of the position of this work in the development of Critical Theory.
Adorno and Horkheimer see the self-destruction of Western reason as grounded in a historical and fateful dialectic between the domination of external nature and society. They trace enlightenment, which split these spheres apart, back to its mythical roots. Enlightenment and myth, therefore, are not irreconcilable opposites, but dialectically mediated qualities of both real and intellectual life. "Myth is already enlightenment, and enlightenment reverts to mythology." This paradox is the fundamental thesis of the book.
法兰克福学派的重要代表阿多诺是最早完整提出文化工业思考的思想家。而这一概念的提出有其特有的历史背景。具体说来,两次世界大战之后,法西斯主义肆虐全球,改变了社会的政治经济结构,在新的社会结构之下,个人失去了其在政治,经济上的自主的声音,个人的主体性终结了.由于采取...
評分一稿多投233333 读书报告:现代景观社会的基本结构 一、故事的缘起 过去的两百多年见证了人类社会翻天覆地的变化:比过去的几千年还要大。人口越来越多,知识越来越广,机器越来越强大,信息交流越来越方便,战争越来越残酷,休闲娱乐越来越丰富,未来的风险越来越大。这些变化...
評分这是我十年前读到的第一本西方马克思主义文化批判作品。后来出了新版,阿多尔诺部分是曹卫东翻译的,虽然没读过这个版本,但看到有人说与原文对照的话能看出曹卫东翻译得不好,我不懂德文,无从判断。我看的这个版本(洪佩郁, 蔺月峰译)也是从德文译出的,但多用短句翻译(译...
評分在《资本论》中,马克思表达了这样一个论题:资本具有天然的逐利性,社会上哪个行业赚钱,资本就会像潮水般涌过去。社会中的资本具有一种特殊的能力:它所到之处就会使原来美好的事物遭到贬损,因为它抽离了传统社会中各种内在价值,取而代之的交换价值。资本的不断扩散,其实...
評分阿多诺的启蒙或启蒙批判 [摘 要] 表面上看,启蒙运动的企图早已实现了。如果启蒙完成以前的世界在启蒙的推动者眼里是草率和嬗变的话,那么他们需要做的首要工作就是阻止这种草率和嬗变继续下去。启蒙开始前,世界的神话幻想没有连贯性,也不具有让它长期保持和谐一致的特性...
這也是必須的。。
评分曆史進程上,人都有欲望要建構一個自為的機器,人創造概念,這些概念在大規模的傳播下成為第二自然性,順從這些就是所謂健康的體現,而反對它,反而需要超人一樣的力量。一個社會越是文明,生産力越是得到解放,人的形象就越加孤獨與支離破碎,人的內心也越加受到壓抑。讀的過程中也看到瞭今後像Foucault寫規訓與懲罰的影子
评分莫名其妙的翻譯比較多
评分忽然就覺得多少可以解釋為什麼天朝大眾如此熱愛看無腦綜藝和國産劇,大概是因為這些精心推敲過套路、拿捏著人的笑點及其頻率的節目真的可以讓被嚴重剝削的勞動人民在工作與工作的間隙裏迅速迴血且逐步放棄思考的自覺——一切的目的隻是為瞭成為更適應生産的螺絲釘。或許從來沒有哪個社會形態會如此無孔不入而悄無聲息地滲透統治階級的意識形態,成功化矛盾於無形。這大概也解釋瞭為什麼無産階級並沒有成為曆史的執行者,共産主義也終究無法到來。
评分沒懂
本站所有內容均為互聯網搜索引擎提供的公開搜索信息,本站不存儲任何數據與內容,任何內容與數據均與本站無關,如有需要請聯繫相關搜索引擎包括但不限於百度,google,bing,sogou 等
© 2025 book.quotespace.org All Rights Reserved. 小美書屋 版权所有