Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T02:21:32.351Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diabolus in dialectica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2017

Fred Rush
Fred Rush*
Affiliation:
University of Notre Dame, [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Adorno’s Drei Studien zu Hegel (Hegel: Three Studies, 1963) offers his most focused treatment of what he took to be the core principles of Hegelian dialectic. Moreover, the book professes the central importance of Hegel for Adorno’s own development. As such, it is a pivotal document that simultaneously looks back towards Adorno’s most sustained personal work, Minima Moralia (1951), and ahead to what he took to be his most important systematic work, Negative Dialectics (1966). Adorno’s interpretation of Hegel is critical and unique in both its tone and substance. Although there are many cross-cutting lines of argumentation, the one that stands out is Adorno’s understanding of determinate negation in Hegel and his own suggestion for improving that concept. This paper reconstructs Adorno’s main arguments in this domain, assesses them as interpretations of Hegel and investigates their importance for Adorno’s emerging conception of ‘negative dialectics’.

Type
Articles
Information
Hegel Bulletin , Volume 38 , Special Issue 2: Hegel and Critical Theory , October 2017 , pp. 221 - 240
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Hegel Society of Great Britain, 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adorno, T. W. (2001), ‘Zum Probleme der musikalischen Analyse’, in Frankfurter Adorno Blätter, Theodor-Adorno-Archiv (ed.). Frankfurt: text+kritik.Google Scholar
Baeza, N. (2012), ‘Contradiction, Critique, and Dialectic in Adorno’, PhD diss., University of Notre Dame.Google Scholar
Bernstein, J. M. (2006), ‘Negative Dialektik. Begriff und Kategorian III. Adorno zwischen Kant und Hegel’, in A. Honneth and C. Menke (eds.), Theodor W. Adorno. Negative Dialektik. Berlin: Akademie.Google Scholar
Croce, B. (1906), Saggio sullo Hegel. Bari: Laterza.Google Scholar
Früchtl, J. (1986), Mimesis. Konstellation eines Zentralbegriffs bei Adorno. Würzburg: Königshausen and Neumann.Google Scholar
Jacobi, F. H. (2000), Über die Lehre des Spinoza in Briefen an Herrn Moses Mendelssohn, eds. K. Hammacher, I.-M. Piske and M. Lauschke. Hamburg: Meiner.Google Scholar
Kant, I. (1990), Kritik der reinen Vernuft, ed. R. Schmidt. Hamburg: Meiner [A=1781/B=1787 ed.].Google Scholar
Leibniz, G. W. (1969), Essais de théodicée sur la bonté de dieu la liberté de l’homme et l’origine du mal, ed. J. Brunschwig. Paris: Garnier–Flammarion.Google Scholar
Lukács, G. (1967a), Geschichte und Klassenbewußtsein. Berlin: Dietz.Google Scholar
Lukács, G. (1967b), Lenin. Darmstadt: Luchterhand.Google Scholar
Marx, K. (1967), Marx-Engels-Werke. Berlin: Dietz.Google Scholar
O’Connor, B. (1999), ‘The Concept of Mediation in Hegel and Adorno’, Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 40: 84–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pseudo-Aristotle (1955), De mundo, ed. D. J. Furley. Cambridge MA: Harvard Loeb.Google Scholar
Rosen, M. (1980), Hegel’s Dialectic and its Criticism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rush, F. (2004), ‘The Conceptual Foundations of Early Critical Theory’, in F. Rush (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Critical Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar