Is the first generation of Critical Theory still relevant to an analysis of the technocentric nature of contemporary society – particularly its digitally based mediums of interaction and communication? This paper will argue that it is. This will be achieved by examining the interdisciplinary methodological framework that guides Critical Theory. This approach offers the researcher fruitful insight. It allows for a broad, yet heuristically rich understanding of society which can extend to the technological and digital domains of the 21st century. (...) Critical Theory’s powerful (albeit damning and admittedly over-extensive) critique of first- generation instrumental rationality (as embodied in modern technology) assists the contemporary researcher in their evaluation of the forms of communicative technology that have emerged in the 21st century. This is because such a critique permits one to attain a more nuanced and sensitive understanding of such technologies and the variegated forms they have assumed. It also cautions against technological determinism and cyber-utopianism which has managed to entrench itself in a great deal of modern literature pertaining to this topic. (shrink)

The purpose of this chapter is to demonstrate a new approach to transcultural postcomparative philosophy, which may be tentatively called “the method of sublation,” using the example of Adorno and Gong Sunlong’s respective views on the relationship between concepts and objects. The term sublation is a neologism commonly used to translate Hegel’s idea of Aufhebung. It is derived from the Latin term sublatio, for its original meaning covered all three crucial connotations of Hegel’s Aufhebung – to lift up, to preserve (...) and to eliminate. The method thus encompasses all three of these three notions that are crucial to any process of creating something new from the interactions between two or more distinct discourses. In this philosophical sense, it has the three meanings of producing, eliminating, and preserving arguments, propositions, or ideas. Moreover, unlike “synthesis” the term “sublation” refers to a process rather than a stage. The sublation method aims to develop new forms of transcultural philosophizing and to overcome the impasses of traditional comparative approaches through procedures of “conceptual comparison” rather than relying only on the “comparison of concepts”. It starts from similarities and differences identified in the basic paradigms of different culturally and semantically defined frames of reference, and uses the method of discursive translation to transfer meanings across different languages and ideational traditions. Through a contrastive analysis of the similarities and differences between Adorno’s and Gongsun Longs conceptions of concepts and objects (or names and realities, respectively), the paper demonstrates the importance of considering different culturally conditioned paradigms and frames of reference in order to gain new, more complex, and more pluralistic philosophical insights. (shrink)

Resumo: De acordo com parte da literatura, a teoria crítica de Adorno é um lamento sobre o fracasso da civilização moderna que é incapaz de dar conta de suas próprias condições de possibilidade. No presente artigo, questiono tal veredito, por meio da análise da questão de como a crítica pode ser feita e de quem seria o destinatário dela, em uma situação de quase completa dominação.: According to a certain part of the relevant literature, Adorno's critical theory is a lament (...) on the failure of modern civilization to explain its own conditions of possibility. In this paper, I question this verdict by analyzing the problem of how criticism can be done and who the addressee for it would be in a situation of almost complete domination. (shrink)

The question of why bad things happen (to good people) has puzzled individuals over generations and across different cultures. The most popular approach is to turn the issue into a question about God: Why does he allow bad things that lead to the suffering of often innocent bystanders? Some have drawn conclusions that there can be no God. These attempts that seek to find meaning in suffering are called theodicies. Thus, theodicies promise that the torment of the innocent is not (...) in vain. In this article, I argue that theodicy as a viewpoint, independent of its intention, does injustice to the experience of the sufferer. Furthermore, an Adornian approach to suffering avoids the instrumentalization of others’ suffering and that instead of relating to another person’s suffering through theodicy, Adorno’s notion of non-identity opens up an alternative, non-coercive avenue. (shrink)