In a message dated 1/16/99 7:20:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,
Stuart.Elden@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> Interesting, but I wonder if it is due to the shared interest in Marx,
> Heidegger and Nietzsche, along with them all having read Rusche and
> Kirchheimer on punishment, rather than any direct influence.
Adorno's dissertation was on Husserl and he was very familiar with Kant and
Hegel as one of his colleagues, Horkheimer, wrote his dissertation on Kant and
Hegel. Also, Adorno was not really a Marxist, but rather a critic of Marxism.
As a considered leader of the Frankfurt School and the founder of Critical
Theory, Adorno exposed in his analyses of Marxism, several contradictions,
particularly, the base-superstructure relation, which Adorno reversed as part
of his emphases upon cultural problems. Adorno however approached matters
quite differently than Foucault. Foucault is describing, discovering
historical practices and then building a notion of human nature upon that,
however, Foucault's notion of human nature is quite external and does not
really delve into philosophical thinking, but stays or rather emphases
political thinking and the external effects of politics upon our being.
Adorno however, is trying to explicate human nature in terms of cultural and
historical influences that are immanent and internal. I just realized that I
am opposing these two individuals and I am sure that they have things in
common, but when I noticed this thread, it came to me that they were distinct
in these ways, at least.
Vunch
Stuart.Elden@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
> Interesting, but I wonder if it is due to the shared interest in Marx,
> Heidegger and Nietzsche, along with them all having read Rusche and
> Kirchheimer on punishment, rather than any direct influence.
Adorno's dissertation was on Husserl and he was very familiar with Kant and
Hegel as one of his colleagues, Horkheimer, wrote his dissertation on Kant and
Hegel. Also, Adorno was not really a Marxist, but rather a critic of Marxism.
As a considered leader of the Frankfurt School and the founder of Critical
Theory, Adorno exposed in his analyses of Marxism, several contradictions,
particularly, the base-superstructure relation, which Adorno reversed as part
of his emphases upon cultural problems. Adorno however approached matters
quite differently than Foucault. Foucault is describing, discovering
historical practices and then building a notion of human nature upon that,
however, Foucault's notion of human nature is quite external and does not
really delve into philosophical thinking, but stays or rather emphases
political thinking and the external effects of politics upon our being.
Adorno however, is trying to explicate human nature in terms of cultural and
historical influences that are immanent and internal. I just realized that I
am opposing these two individuals and I am sure that they have things in
common, but when I noticed this thread, it came to me that they were distinct
in these ways, at least.
Vunch