Hi Erik,
you ask about why Adorno wanted to take Heidegger "down".
I haven't gone into any depth regarding the relationship between H. and A. as
thinkers, but from the little I've read and observed since living in Germany, it
seems that Adorno was opposed to Heidegger mainly for political reasons.
A.'s polemic in Jargon of Authenticity hits Heideggerianism rather than
Heidegger's thinking. The polemic in Negative Dialectic is full of hate
(politically motivated). To say that the question of being is a simple tautology
is a bit and to call it a "disgusting term" is less than convincing.
Hermann Moerchen, a disciple of Heidegger's who died only a couple of years ago,
and who was also a Trotskyist, tried to build bridges between H. and A.
philosophically in his main opus. There are affinities in the tendency to take
back the strong subject, but Adorno's metaphysics remain basically Hegelian,
despite his weakening of the dialectical synthesis.
>From my contact with German Marxists over the years, including in Frankfurt
(e.g. A.'s disciple Hans-Georg Backhaus), it has always been plain to me that
Heidegger is simply beyond the pale. Because Marxism and Frankfurt NeoMarxism
(not Habermas's new version of Critical Theory) were intent on changing or at
least critiquing capitalist reality, H.'s question about being seemed to be just
a bourgeois glass bead game.
Cheers,
Michael
Dr Michael Eldred ° artefact text and translation \\\~/// '''''''
artefact@xxxxxxxxxxx °°° made by art °°° ~ \ ~~
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ / ~ ~
vox: (++49 221) 9520 333 fax: (++49 221) 9520 334 \ ~
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
you ask about why Adorno wanted to take Heidegger "down".
I haven't gone into any depth regarding the relationship between H. and A. as
thinkers, but from the little I've read and observed since living in Germany, it
seems that Adorno was opposed to Heidegger mainly for political reasons.
A.'s polemic in Jargon of Authenticity hits Heideggerianism rather than
Heidegger's thinking. The polemic in Negative Dialectic is full of hate
(politically motivated). To say that the question of being is a simple tautology
is a bit and to call it a "disgusting term" is less than convincing.
Hermann Moerchen, a disciple of Heidegger's who died only a couple of years ago,
and who was also a Trotskyist, tried to build bridges between H. and A.
philosophically in his main opus. There are affinities in the tendency to take
back the strong subject, but Adorno's metaphysics remain basically Hegelian,
despite his weakening of the dialectical synthesis.
>From my contact with German Marxists over the years, including in Frankfurt
(e.g. A.'s disciple Hans-Georg Backhaus), it has always been plain to me that
Heidegger is simply beyond the pale. Because Marxism and Frankfurt NeoMarxism
(not Habermas's new version of Critical Theory) were intent on changing or at
least critiquing capitalist reality, H.'s question about being seemed to be just
a bourgeois glass bead game.
Cheers,
Michael
Dr Michael Eldred ° artefact text and translation \\\~/// '''''''
artefact@xxxxxxxxxxx °°° made by art °°° ~ \ ~~
http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ / ~ ~
vox: (++49 221) 9520 333 fax: (++49 221) 9520 334 \ ~
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---