Le but de ce mémoire est de présenter la position de Theodor W. Adomo sur la métaphysique. Après avoir exposé l’idée philosophique centrale de la pensée d’Adomo, la dialectique négative, nous présentons d’une part la critique qu’adresse Adomo à la tradition métaphysique, et d’autre part sa tentative de sauvetage de la métaphysique. La thèse centrale d’Adomo sur la métaphysique est la suivante : la métaphysique doit être sauvée dans une perspective micrologique, une perspective qui est centrée sur la particularité plutôt que sur l’universalité.

Ce mémoire a pour objectif de présenter la conception de la subjectivité telle qu’elle est définie dans la philosophie de Theodor W. Adorno. Il s’agira de montrer que cette conception cherche à la fois à maintenir et dépasser la tradition idéaliste qui est à son origine. Cette tradition pense la subjectivité comme raison, autonomie et spontanéité, fondées sur la pure relation à soi de la conscience. Sans abandonner l’horizon d’une philosophie de la conscience, la conception adornienne du sujet insiste sur le rôle constitutif de la figure d’autrui, comprise à la fois comme nature, non-identité et différence. La subjectivité chez Adorno ne doit donc plus être exclusivement comprise comme raison et comme capacité d’autodétermination, mais également comme potentialité d’être librement affectée par ce qui lui est autre. Adorno nomme cette potentialité la réconciliation et la thématise sous le signe de la « communication du différent » : un rapport libéré de la peur et de la souffrance entre les individus. Dans un tel rapport, la nature n’est ni aveugle ni opprimée, laissant place à une harmonie entre la raison et ce qui lui est autre. C’est ainsi que la philosophie d’Adorno formule l’exigence morale d’une résistance critique de la pensée ouverte à la différence. / The purpose of this study is to present the conception of the subject found in the philosophy of T.W. Adorno. We will show that Adorno thinks subjectivity both with and against the German idealist tradition that gave it birth. This tradition poses that the essence of the subject is reason, spontaneity and autonomy, founded in the relationship of self to its consciousness. Adorno maintains the importance of a philosophy of consciousness, but also insists on the constitutive role of the other in the formation of the subject. As such, subjectivity for Adorno is no longer exclusively understood as reason or the power of self-determination, but must also as the potentiality of being freely affected by what is different. He thus insists on reconciliation, a non-dominating and non-submitting relationship to nature, to build his moral philosophy. Reconciliation must be understood as the “communication of differences”: a relationship between individuals in which they no longer need to fear or suffer needlessly. Moral thought must for Adorno attempt to think a state where a harmony would be possible between reason and nature, the critical resistance of thought and the openness to what is different.

Univ., Diss.--Stuttgart, 2005.

Univ., Diss.--Göttingen, 1996. / Literaturverz. S. 185 - 198.

Jurgen Habermas argues for a paradigm change in critical theory from Theodor W. Adorno's philosophy of consciousness to his own linguistically-turned theory. Habermas claims that Adorno's conception of reason sets up an antagonistic relationship between subject and object that can only be overcome by a non-rational mimesis with nature. This thesis defends Adorno against Habermas, and argues that the linguistic turn is a mistake. Chapter 1 outlines Habermas's critique, and corrects some of his specific misunderstandings of Adorno. Chapter 2 offers a positive defense of Adorno. By means of an expanded notion of nature, Adorno shows how the relation between subject and object need not be the antagonistic one characteristic of so much of modern philosophy. Chapter 3 argues that it is not Adorno's dialectical thought, but Habermas's linguistically-turned critical theory that suffers from an inability properly to articulate the relation between subject and object.

This paper was revised and later published in The Other Journal, Issue 14 (January 27, 2009) http://theotherjournal.com/2009/01/27/earths-lament-suffering-hope-and-wisdom/ Accessed: June 25, 2013

This is a revised version of Lambert Zuidervaart's inaugural address presented on November 21, 2003, on the occasion of the author's taking up the position as professor at the Institute.

Orientador: Rosa Maria Feiteiro Cavalari / Resumo: A relação sociedade-natureza decorre, principalmente, da concepção de natureza que construímos ou, como afirma Bornheim, do “modo como o homem torna a natureza presente” (1985, p.18). A sociedade moderna ocidental tem “tornado a natureza presente” a partir de uma relação dicotômica. A partir de René Descartes e Francis Bacon, o conhecimento científico passou a ter uma função intervencionista, tornando-se necessário conhecer a natureza para dominá-la. O sucesso do projeto de Francis Bacon, no qual “saber é poder”, hoje ameaça a biosfera (Giacoia Junior, 2004) e exige reflexões e ações para a superação da crise socioambiental. É o que Hans Jonas (2006) denominou de “dialética do poder”. A esta perspectiva de conhecimento, enfatizada no século XIX pela ciência positivista, a “Teoria Crítica” elaborada pela Escola de Frankfurt, que tem Theodor Adorno como um de seus principais pensadores, se opõe radicalmente. Da mesma forma, afirmamos que a atual crise socioambiental não pode ser resolvida por meio da ciência e da tecnologia, mas torna-se, fundamentalmente, uma questão política (BORNHEIM, 1985). Neste sentido, compreendemos a Educação e a Arte, em uma perspectiva política, fundamentais para a transformação da realidade. Para Adorno, em nossa sociedade predomina a “Semiformação”, que nos coloca sob a ameaça da barbárie, sendo a auto-reflexão crítica a única alternativa. No entanto, a auto-reflexão crítica, possibilitada pela teoria crítica da sociedade e cuja racionalidade ainda ... (Resumo completo, clicar acesso eletrônico abaixo) / Abstract: The relationship between society and nature derives mainly from the conception of nature that we construct or, as Bornheim asserts, "how man makes nature present" (1985, p. 18). Western modern society has "made the nature present " from a dichotomous relationship. Since Descartes and Bacon, the scientific knowledge started to have an interventionist function, being necessary the knowledge of nature to dominate it. The success of Francis Bacon's project in which points that "knowledge is power" threatens the biosphere nowadays (Giacoia Junior, 2004) and requires reflection and action to overcome the socio-environmental crisis. This is what Hans Jonas (2006) named as the "dialectic of power". The "Critical Theory" elaborated by the Frankfurt School, which has Theodor Adorno as one of its main thinkers, radically opposes to this perspective of knowledge, which was emphasized in the nineteenth century by the positivist science. Similarly, we affirm that the current socio-environmental crisis cannot be solved by science and technology, being fundamentally a political concern (BORNHEIM, 1985). Therefore, we understand Education and Art, from a political perspective, essential for the transformation of reality. For Adorno, in our society the "Semiformation" predominates, that puts us under the threat of barbarism, in which critical self-reflection is the only alternative. However, critical self-reflection, that was possible by the critical theory of society and whose rationality is ... (Complete abstract click electronic access below) / Doutor

Doctor of Philosophy / Abstract This study examines the effect of exile on Theodor Wolff’s writings from 1933 to 1943. Wolff, a highly assimilated German Jew and renowned journalist and editor-in-chief of the ‘Berliner Tageblatt’ from 1906-1933, was one of the most influential cultural and liberal political commentators during World War I and the Weimar Republic. His political life and influence has been extensively researched, whereas his life in exile has not been explored. Enforced sudden exile in 1933 represented a turning point in Wolff’s life. Following the temporal sequence of Wolff’s ten years in exile, this study is divided into four chapters, starting with the early exile years from 1933 to 1936, followed by the immediate pre World War II period. The third chapter covers the German invasion and occupation of France in 1940. The last chapter sheds light on the two final years from 1942 to 1943. These four periods reflect his exile experience and gradual decline in living conditions, mood, and fundamental changes in his approach to writing. In exile Wolff devotes his time and effort to historical accounts and fiction – a difficult genre for a publicist and journalistic writer. He also embarks on autobiographical writings and during his final years in exile deals with the Jewish catastrophe unfolding in Nazi controlled Europe, raising issues concerning the so called ‘Jewish Problem’. This study draws attention to the effect exile had on an important German- Jewish writer, who in 1943 fell victim to the Holocaust. Wolff’s works, especially his exile writings survived the war and remain relevant today. The findings of this research provide some insight into a turbulent period in German and European history that drastically changed many lives. It also makes a significant contribution to the study of Theodor Wolff and to exile studies in general.

Thesis (M.A.)--California State University, Fullerton, [2004] / Includes bibliographical references (p. 77-84). Also available on the Internet.