Re: Adorno on fascism and the Authoritarian Persoanlity (WAS Re: Celan and Adorno, Art and Auschwitz (WAS Re: Paul Celan - music on . . .))


<david7gable@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1136399249.842795.12790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Wieland writes: "I would say that you did not refute any of the points
> he (or Adorno) made in the first place."
>
> Wieland, I didn't attempt to refute any of the points Ian or Adorno
> made. We didn't get that far.

Then maybe you might try to engage with those points - it would be a lot
more productive than posting endless defensive rants.

> The discussion stalled out well before
> the point where Adorno's points could be discussed. I attempted to
> explain to Ian the problem that I have with his resort to terms that,
> as he uses them, are nothing more than abstract idealist concepts.

They are abstract and idealist, but why is that a bad thing? Can you not get
your head round the subject/object dichotomy, or reification, or capitalism?
And I presume fascism must have a meaning for you, as you use the term
yourself.

> Ian
> and Adorno both use such concepts without defining them well enough to
> make them useful.

Everyone uses concepts without always feeling the need to spell every one
out on every single occasion.

Ian


.

Relevant Pages