% IMPORTANT: The following is UTF-8 encoded. This means that in the presence
% of non-ASCII characters, it will not work with BibTeX 0.99 or older.
% Instead, you should use an up-to-date BibTeX implementation like “bibtex8” or
% “biber”.
@PHDTHESIS{SanatiMasboughi:61236,
author = {Sanati-Masboughi, Zakria},
othercontributors = {Gatzemeier, Matthias},
title = {{A}uf der {S}uche nach dem verlorenen {S}ubjekt : der
{S}tellenwert des Ästhetischen im {K}ontext der
{G}eschichtsphilosophie der kritischen {T}heorie},
address = {Aachen},
publisher = {Publikationsserver der RWTH Aachen University},
reportid = {RWTH-CONV-122914},
pages = {Getr. Zählung},
year = {2006},
note = {Aachen, Techn. Hochsch., Diss., 2006},
abstract = {This dissertation compares subject representations taken,
on the one hand, from M. Horkheimer and T. W. Adorno’s
jointly composed essay “Dialectic of Enlightenment” and,
on the other hand, from Adorno’s fragmentary essay
“Aesthetic Theory”, which was published posthumously.In
order to implement such a comparison, critical theory’s
philosophy of history was firstly examined, such as it is
elaborated in “Dialectic of Enlightenment”. The
principal theses inherent in Horkheimer and Adorno’s essay
are the following:a) History is influenced by the force of
self-preservation.b) In order for this intended
self-preservation to be realised, it was necessary to
dominate nature in a collective act.c) In order to dominate
nature, firstly a particular type of thinking and
rationality was necessary and secondly a particular type of
subject.d) The necessary type of rationality is described in
“Dialectic of Enlightenment” as instrumental-rational
thought. This way of thinking corresponds with the
domination of nature. In this mode of thought and
rationality, nature is always subjugated and oppressed to
the benefit of self-preservation. The necessary type of
subject is – according to “Dialectic of Enlightenment”
– the Self. The Self executes the domination of nature.
The historical process of creation ran its course according
to this pattern, and modern man came into being in the same
way as his archaic forebear did.e) All the components cited
under c) and d) are – according to the authors of
“Dialectic of Enlightenment” – constitutive for both
the myth, which dominated archaic time, and for modernity,
dominated by enlightenment. One can say, then, that myth was
already enlightenment and that modernity displays mythical
traits, on account of the continued existence of the
so-called mythical fear of nature. This entwining of myth
and enlightenment is, then, the cardinal thesis in
“Dialectic of Enlightenment”. With regard to the
before-mentioned outline of critical theory’s philosophy
of history, the composition of the subject of enlightenment
– the Self – was of major significance for this
dissertation. Both as the starting point for instrumental
reasoning – and as its lackey – this subject shrinks
down to the level of a pathetic façade, characterized by
the dictatorship of self-preservation. The type of subject
that is diametrically opposed to the Self is, for Adorno,
that of works of art. As is well known, in his “Aesthetic
Theory”, Adorno undertook a phenomenology of art and works
of art. One of the basic concepts of this phenomenology is
the provision of works of art with attributes which are
otherwise solely so-called human qualities. A closer look,
however, reveals that those features transposed onto the
works of art represent, for Adorno exactly that which the
subject of enlightenment – that is, the Self – has lost
or is lacking. This leads on to the conclusion, then, that,
for Adorno, that which is such as works of art are, is in
fact the representation of an emphatic subject, that
justifies the concept of subject, unlike the Self, which
falls short of it.},
cin = {700000},
ddc = {100},
cid = {$I:(DE-82)700000_20140620$},
typ = {PUB:(DE-HGF)11},
urn = {urn:nbn:de:hbz:82-opus-14334},
url = {https://publications.rwth-aachen.de/record/61236},
}
Gast ::