Dialectic of Enlightenment
- What is "Enlightenment"?
“The enlightenment” is a period in time in which people started taking interest in gaining knowledge about the world and happenings that take place within it. Before the age of enlightenment, the church was the main source of knowledge and information in the world. After which, philosophers like e.g. Aristotle, and Plato, and scientists like Galileo, and Copernicus, came and reinvented the notion of knowledge since they began questioning the non-scientifically proven religious beliefs. “Enlightenment” as a term could potentially then be defined as the concept of being filled with the thirst for scientific evidence and knowledge of the world around us and its inherent properties.
- What is "Dialectic"?
The concept of “Dialectic” is the predecessor to creation of knowledge. More precise, it is the notion of people conducting an argumentative discussion during which both sides come closer and closer to an agreement which then can be seen as knowledge on the subject discussed. Through discussing and using real functional arguments and remaining true to the task of knowledge creation, those discussing can come to a conclusion which brings both sides of the argument together in unison. Also, according to Horkheimer and Adorno, one can argue that the concept of “dialect” was the main source of knowledge during the age of enlightenment as discussed above. Potentially, introducing the concept of dialectic gave way to the development that would later be known as enlightenment.
- What is "Nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?
Nominalism is a philosophical and metaphysical term which contains the notion that various objects don’t share any properties (other than potentially their name). This means that, according to nominalism, that which is observable is the only real truth since knowledge is experience. For instance, the notion of a human, in nominalistic terms, is only the thing which we see (shape, size, etc), not the properties we would generally append a human (personality, looks, strength, etc).
The reason as to why it’s an important concept in the text is that it questions the being of objects and their qualities, which is a fundamental part of the dialectic discussion lead during the enlightenment. Abstract thoughts and concepts such as God, myths, and other religious concepts, are therefore not real since they cannot be seen (i.e. experienced), while real factual things in this world remain real due to us being able to perceive them.
- What is the meaning and function of "myth" in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument?
Myths are described by the authors as stories, not built upon real perceived facts or knowledge. According to enlightenment, anthropomorphism (the projection of subjective properties onto nature), have always been the basis of myth. All ideas of horrible mythical creatures can be derived from human’s fear of natural phenomena, and thus myths are born since the fear is projected onto these occurrences.
"The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity"
- In the beginning of the essay, Benjamin talks about the relation between "superstructure" and "substructure" in the capitalist order of production. What do the concepts "superstructure" and "substructure" mean in this context and what is the point of analyzing cultural production from a Marxist perspective?
According to Benjamin, Marx defines substructure as the existing economic structure of society (stretching from capitalism to socialism) which then defines the concept of superstructure. Superstructure is the concept within which a society’s values, norms, and institutions are determined - as mentioned based on the substructure (i.e. social economic structure). Thus, Benjamin describes the two definitions as cooperating in order to create a specific society and its inherent values and norms.
- Does culture have revolutionary potentials (according to Benjamin)? If so, describe these potentials. Does Benjamin's perspective differ from the perspective of Adorno & Horkheimer in this regard?
Since Benjamin refers to the development of photography as a technological and cultural advancement which has yielded great potential for revolutionary ideas and ideologies to spread, I would argue that Benjamin believes that culture has revolutionary potential. The development of photography lead to people being able to capture, both in moving and still pictures, the world around them - letting them tell powerful stories of society which in turn could create revolution through people’s engagement. Adorno & Horkheimer state that this development rather lets people on a different track than that of engaged activists and revolutionaries. Therefore, culture is, by them, defined as rather something counteractive in the sense of revolution.
- Benjamin discusses how people perceive the world through the senses and argues that this perception can be both naturally and historically determined. What does this mean? Give some examples of historically determined perception (from Benjamin's essay and/or other contexts).
Benjamin states that the Romans developed of a kind of perception different from the ancient Greeks’ through new emerging art forms. Since Romans developed a new kind of art, different from those art forms previously prefered, they also perceived it differently and thus created a new way of perception. Thus, one might argue that this is a type of historically determined perception, since Romans during this time created a new way of perceiving through historical and cultural development. Naturally determined perception is however how people perceive based on nothing but our senses.
- What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?
Inga kommentarer:
Skicka en kommentar