Thursday, November 18, 2004

After Auschwitz

It seems to me that Adorno is quite confused; however, there is a bit more than that to it.
[Before I begin, please don't accept my opinions as fact, this is only what I got from the reading]
From what I know, before WWII philosophy was beginning to focus on the betterment of society as a whole instead of finding truth. The idea of finding happiness via truth had degredaded into finding happiness, and then finally for everyone to be a happy as possible within a society. This last, utilitarian point, was at a hight of acceptance and analization before WWII, and was a favorite of Hilter in the form of Nietzsche, of course all of this is extreme over simplication.
Anyway, after WWII occured and so much unhappiness ensued, the ideas of existentialism and logotherapy took hold very quickly.
It seems as if Adorno is taking issue with the idea of existentialism vs. a more thought based philosophy because he sees neither as providing real meaning to anyones life after WWII. On the one hand he seems to claim that philosophy is just a means of escape and yet on the other hand looking at things as they really are provides a person with no explanations whatsoever.
I say Adorno seems confused because he provides no real epistomology of his own, much like Descartes in his first discourse in which he concludes that one can only know that one exists and nothing more.
Adorno is reaching for a way for people to escape from guilt without really escaping it, yet he cannot conclude that one can look at the facts as they are and conclude that everything works out logically.
Where do you suppose Adorno is going with this, would he accept any form of philosophy or not?
Should philosophy be used as a form of absolving oneself, as is logotherapy?
Can truth be found by facts, what does Adorno think?
Can evil mass murder be reconciled with the guilt of some victims who survived?


Post a Comment

<< Home