However, they emphasized the necessity of transformation of classical philosophy, 3 x Karl-Otto Apel, Towards a Transformation of Philosophy (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 1980). While uncovering Kantianism in Adorno requires some detective work, Apel and Habermas have always admitted their Kantian heritage frankly. – where Adorno embodies an attitude regarding history which is more methodologically aligned with the Kantian critical project than with Hegelian knowledge about history.
(London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1984, originally Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp-Verlag 1970). On the other hand, we find views about Utopia and reconciliation – particular in the Aesthetic Theory 2 x Theodor W. Or Adorno’s ambivalent take on history: on the one hand his writings seem to be driven by the conviction of the Dialectic of Enlightenment that history fails right from the beginning – which seems to presuppose metaphysical knowledge about the course of history. without some concept of morality in the Kantian tradition. Jephcott (New York: Verso Books 2006, originally Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp-Verlag, 1951). Thus, it will be difficult to make sense of Adorno’s criticisms of modern societies in Minima Moralia 1 x Theodor W. On the other hand, there are numerous alliances between both authors on a deeper level. On the one hand, he criticized Kant quite superficially for being un-historical, bourgeois or un-dialectical. Adorno’s relationship to Kant has always been ambivalent. Rainer Forst gives discourse theory a turn in which the Kantian heritage is more strongly emphasized than with earlier authors of the so-called Frankfurt School, such as Adorno, Habermas or Honneth.
0 kommentar(er)
