1、cover file:/G|/.idervaart%20-%20Adornos%20Aesthetic%20Theory;%20The%20Redemption%20of%20Illusion/files/cover.html21/04/2011 9:20:09 AM cover next page title: Adornos Aesthetic Theory : The Redemption of Illusion Studies in Contemporary German Social Thought author: Zuidervaart, Lambert. publisher: M
2、IT Press isbn10 | asin: 0262240327 print isbn13: 9780262240321 ebook isbn13: 9780585347448 language: English subject Adorno, Theodor W.,-1903-1969.-sthetische Theorie, Aesthetics, Modern-20th century. publication date: 1991 lcc: B3199.A33A438 1991eb ddc: 111/.85/092 subject: Adorno, Theodor W.,-1903
3、-1969.-sthetische Theorie, Aesthetics, Modern-20th century. cover next page page_xi file:/G|/.t%20-%20Adornos%20Aesthetic%20Theory;%20The%20Redemption%20of%20Illusion/files/page_000011.html21/04/2011 9:20:11 AMPage xi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Work on this book has spanned many years and four different countr
4、ies. It is, in a sense, the work of a migrant, and it has given me a deeper appreciation of people who, like Adorno, have immigrated to the United States. My parents, Tena Beuving and Martin Zuidervaart, left the Netherlands in their youth to make their homes in California. They came from what the D
5、utch call de kleine Luyden, the little people, hardworking but not obsessed, lacking many possessions yet generous toward others. My father died shortly before I completed the first draft of this book. I had hoped to thank him here for his gentle nurture and his unassuming pursuit of justice and pea
6、ce. I dedicate this book to his memory, and to my mother, whom I admire for her courage, her persistence, and her loyalty to the people and institutions she loves. I shall ever be thankful for having these two remarkable people as my parents. There have been times when I thought seriously about aban
7、doning this project. At such dark times, and all the times between, I could count on the encouragement of my wife, Joyce Alene Recker. I am deeply grateful to her. She is a lovely companion, a faithful source of joy and strength. I have received help from many colleagues at various stages of my writ
8、ing, more than I can mention by name. I have enjoyed stimulating discussions and correspondence with Susan Buck-Morss, Martin Jay, Douglas Kellner, Christian Lenhardt, Margaret Rose, and the late Carl Dahlhaus, all of whompage_xii file:/G|/.t%20-%20Adornos%20Aesthetic%20Theory;%20The%20Redemption%20
9、of%20Illusion/files/page_000012.html21/04/2011 9:20:11 AMPage xii have made distinguished contributions to scholarship on Adorno and his tradition. Hendrik Hart, Johan van der Hoeven, and Nicholas Wolterstorff have inspired me by their encouragement and their own writings. I am honored to count them
10、 among my mentors in philosophy. My greatest debt is to Calvin Seerveld, who first introduced me to the German tradition in aesthetics, and who has been my closest discussion partner on the issues treated in this book. To all these colleagues, and to others not named, I say thank you. I hope they en
11、joy the results of their help and do not take offense at any failures to follow their advice or example. Calvin College has provided invaluable support through its library and computer center and through research fellowships awarded by the College and by the Calvin Alumni Association. My colleagues
12、in the Philosophy Department have applied their impressive analytical tools. to parts of the manuscript and weeded out many a wild formulation. If the book is not a proper garden, the responsibility lies with the author or the subject matter and not with them. I thank Donna Kruithof, Philosophy Depa
13、rtment secretary, for typing a rough draft of the manuscript and for doing the many little things that make an authors lot less tedious. I also thank my former research assistants, Lisa De Boer and Christopher Eberle, students in art history and philosophy, respectively. I have happy memories of our
14、 work together. An earlier version of chapter 10 appeared as “Realism, Modernism, and the Empty Chair,“ in Postmodernism/Jameson/Critique, edited by D. Kellner (Maisonneuve Press, 1989). Other parts of this book have appeared in earlier versions under the following titles: “Methodological Shadowboxi
15、ng in Marxist Aesthetics: Lukcs and Adorno,“ The Journal of Comparative Literature and Aesthetics 10 (1988 89); “The Social Significance of Autonomous Art: Adorno and Brger,“ The Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism 48 (Winter 1990); and Contra-Diction: Adornos Philosophy of Discourse,“ in Philos
16、ophy of Discourse, edited by G. Jensen and C. Sills (Heinemann Educational Books). I am grateful to the editors and publishers for permission to incorporate materials, sometimes verbatim, from these earlier publications.page_xiii file:/G|/.t%20-%20Adornos%20Aesthetic%20Theory;%20The%20Redemption%20o
17、f%20Illusion/files/page_000013.html21/04/2011 9:20:12 AMPage xiii A NOTE ON REFERENCES References to Adornos translated writings give first the page of the German edition and then the page of the English translation, thus: DA 31/15. The bibliography lists the translations and abbreviations used in s
18、uch citations. Where published translations of Adorno are unsatisfactory, they are replaced or revised without indication. I cite from his Gesammelte Schriften whenever possible. Otherwise the editions used are those indicated in section 1 of the bibliography. The main text is Theodor W. Adorno, sth
19、etische Theorie, ed. Gretel Adorno and Rolf Tiedemann, Gesammelte Schriften vol. 7 (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1970; 2d ed., 1972). Pages 47 68 differ in the first and second editions; a passage first printed on p. 47 appears on pp. 67 68 in the second edition. All references are to the second edi
20、tion. The translation used is T. W. Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, trans. C. Lenhardt (London: Routledge %20The%20Redemption%20of%20Illusion/files/page_000015.html21/04/2011 9:20:13 AMPage xv INTRODUCTION Theodor W. Adornos Aesthetic Theory is a labyrinth filled with stylistic, conceptual, and methodolog
21、ical puzzles. Entire books could be written deciphering Adornos language, reconstructing his dialectical arguments, or examining his phenomenological methods, only to have readers find no path to the meaning of this complex work. Even the most obvious sources of illumination seem insufficient. Adorn
22、os other writings provide clues to obscure passages in Aesthetic Theory, but his most important books present their own mazes. A look at Adornos philosophical precursors is also enlightening, yet his ties to these are tangled, and the most important ones resist paraphrase. Additional guidance comes
23、from recent debates on Adornos legacy. Heavy reliance on these, however, would divert attention from his aesthetics to the contemporary discussions for which it holds promise. Although it would be foolish to ignore any of these guides, they all too easily lead outside one labyrinth into another. Non
24、e of this renders it impossible to identify crucial areas in which Aesthetic Theory makes significant contributions to philosophical aesthetics. In an attempt to do this, I have constructed a configuration of topics in the context of Adornos other writings. The configuration is guided by his idea of
25、 artistic truth. Adornos critical attitude toward abstract methodologies encourages flexibility in interpretative strategies. Accordingly, I make selective references to historical sources and contemporary debates, while ignoring numerous passages in Aesthetic Theory.page_xvi file:/G|/.t%20-%20Adorn
26、os%20Aesthetic%20Theory;%20The%20Redemption%20of%20Illusion/files/page_000016.html21/04/2011 9:20:14 AMPage xvi As many commentators have noted, the idea of artistic truth is a central theme in Adornos aesthetics. 1 This idea pervades Adornos writings, from his earliest literary review on “Expressio
27、nism and Artistic Truthfulness“ (1920) to the philosophical essays published in the last year of his life (1969). It also weds the disparate philosophical sources of his aesthetics: Kants notion of beauty as a symbol of morality and Hegels view of art as a semblance of truth; Marxs critique of ideol
28、ogy and Nietzsches suspicion of the ideology of critique; Lukgcss emphasis on social totality and Benjamins stress on artistic fragments. The same idea of artistic truth places Aesthetic Theory in opposition to Heideggerian mystifications of art and Wittgensteinian attacks on traditional aesthetics,
29、 and it marks a point of departure for Adornos most loyal critics. At several levels, then, the idea functions as a “problematic,“ an interlocking set of issues whose controversial theme provokes ongoing debate among participants who are aware of the history of their debate.2 In pursuing this theme,
30、 I do not intend to give a detailed textual commentary or an expansive intellectual history, important and legitimate though such approaches would be. Detailed commentaries can clarify the contours of a difficult philosophical text, but they presuppose a familiarity that cannot be assumed of Aesthet
31、ic Theory in the English-speaking world. Broad intellectual histories can help readers construct the narrative within which various writings operate, as the best studies on Adorno in English demonstrate. Because some excellent historical studies are available, as is an English translation of Aesthet
32、ic Theory,3 I have decided upon a different approach, one that I call a philosophical critique. My primary aims are to uncover significant issues and evaluate Adornos contributions. I do not ignore the need to clarify Adornos text or refuse to construct a historical narrative, but clarification and
33、narration are not the overriding goals. Instead, my commentary identifies interrelated issues, and the elements of historical narration define a problematic animating the text itself. The idea of artistic truth provides an intersection for several significant issues in Aesthetic Theory. I plan to id
34、entifypage_xvii file:/G|/.t%20-%20Adornos%20Aesthetic%20Theory;%20The%20Redemption%20of%20Illusion/files/page_000017.html21/04/2011 9:20:16 AMPage xvii these issues in order to evaluate Adornos contributions to philosophical aesthetics. Philosophers differ on the nature and sources of criteria for e
35、valuating a philosophical position. The history of philosophy provides three different models: transcendent, immanent, and transcendental critique. 4 Transcendent critiques locate their criteria in the critics own position; immanent critiques locate them in the position being criticized; transcenden
36、tal critiques locate them in preconditions making possible both the criticism and the position criticized. A review of some historical examples will indicate the type of critique this book attempts. Modern philosophers who follow the first model tend to employ a foundational epistemology, although n
37、onfoundationalist approaches are also possible. Foundationalists seek to secure for our knowledge foundations that are indubitable and evident or self-evident. Ren Descartess “Cogito ergo sum“ is just such a foundation for what some would call a rationalist epistemology. Sensory impressions fulfill
38、a similar role for so-called empiricists such as John Locke. With a foundation in place, foundationalist philosophers test knowledge claims to see which are well-founded and which are specious. A foundationalist assumes that proper argumentation will establish the necessary link between claims and f
39、oundation or show the absence of such a link. Because there is no thought of going behind or beyond the foundation, the foundationalists criticisms of another philosopher often take the form of a transcendent critique. Such a critique tries to demonstrate that the opponents claims fail to comport wi
40、th the evident or self-evident truths of which the foundationalist is certain. Just as the name of Ren Descartes can stand for the model of transcendent critique, so Immanuel Kants name can indicate the model of transcendental critique. Kant argues that both rationalism and empiricism beg the most i
41、mportant question. How is it possible for us to acquire any knowledge, no matter what status it has on the scale of indubitable truth and well-founded claims? Kant finds his answer in the fundamental capacities and ordering principles by which we make sense of the world. Kants own term for his enter
42、prise is transcendentalpage_xviii file:/G|/.t%20-%20Adornos%20Aesthetic%20Theory;%20The%20Redemption%20of%20Illusion/files/page_000018.html21/04/2011 9:20:16 AMPage xviii critique. When directed toward another philosophers position, a transcendental critique does not simply ask whether that position
43、 comports well with various indubitable or well-founded truths. Rather, a transcendental critique asks what preconditions make it possible to adopt the position being criticized. If consistent, a transcendental critic will also examine the preconditions that make it possible to engage in this critiq
44、ue. Most transcendental critics assume that ultimate preconditions are the same on both sides of the debate. Reason itself is the ultimate precondition and final court of appeal in Kants Critique of Pure Reason. This disturbed some of Kants contemporaries; two of them, Herder and Hamann, wrote “meta
45、critiques“ of Kants critique. 5 But it was left to Hegel to undertake a thorough reexamination of Kants transcendental critique and of all foundational epistemologies. According to Hegel, the problem with Kants critique, and with all foundational epistemologies, is the failure to be sufficiently cri
46、tical. That is to say, Kant fails to scrutinize the conception of knowledge with which he begins. This objection does not lead Hegel to say that every philosopher has ungrounded, epistemological presuppositions and to adopt a general skepticism. Hegels Phenomenology of Spirit follows the path of imm
47、anent critique, conducting a movement through various epistemological positions. Each position puts forward not only claims about what is known or can be known but also views about what counts as knowledge. Hegels immanent critique tests each position to see whether its claims about the known are co
48、nsistent with its own criterion of knowledge. When fundamental inconsistencies emerge, the position has proved itself inadequate according to its own criterion. There is no need for the phenomenologist to measure these positions according to some transcendent or transcendental standard. The inadequa
49、cy of each position can be corrected by a more adequate position whose own internal inconsistencies will subsequently surface. Only by going through this laborious process does Hegel think we can come to know the truth. Hegels Phenomenology of Spirit provides the model for many subsequent challenges to Cartesian and Kantian projects, challenges coming from Kierkegaard and Nietzsche in the nine-
