Dialectic of Enlightenment
What is "Enlightenment"?
Enlightenment is a concept used in philosophy that has developed through times by advocating the view that science and logical thinking give more knowledge to people rather than religious or mythological way of thinking.
What is "Dialectic"?
The term 'dialectic' could be defined in philosophy as a method of examining and discussing opposing ideas aiming at finding a consensus.
"Enlightenment and myth are not seen, therefore, as irreconcilable opposites but as dialectically mediated qualities of both real and intellectual life. Myth is already enlightenment, and: enlightenment reverts to mythology. " This paradox is the fundamental thesis of the book.
What is "Nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?
Nominalism rejects the universals, which means there is no concepts or categories outside the human mind. It has its base on ontology and the term comes from a Latin word "nomen" = name. Nominalism is the answer to the problem of universals: what do we base on our categorizations? That is one of the reasons why extreme nominalism rejects them as well as Plato's thoughts of a another world of abstract shapes, ideas or universals, which is separately from our physical world. However, Horkheimer and Adorno argue that nominalism leads to new kind of categorizing, because if we say that there is no such thing as concepts or categories, that we just sense "what is", the lion still beats the antelope.
According to Adorno and Horkheimer, myth is not believing in God. It is the mechanism by which we're trying to control the world. They use the hunting stories as an example: when people go out to hunt, they dress up like bears or moose in order to have a good hunting luck. They don't just pray the God, but actually go to the nature and act the way they want the nature to act. So it is a matter of mirroring the nature for a hope of effect.
The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity
Substructure is the "breeding ground" for superstructure. For example, in media industry it could mean that the technology is substructure and the value created with it is superstructure. Substructure is the physical things and condition for the substructure to happen.
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
Benjamin discusses how people perceive the world through the senses and argues that this perception can be both naturally and historically determined. By this he means that even though the scholars were the first to question the organization of perception at that time, their views were limited by the significant yet formal hallmark which was typical in the late Roman times. They didn't consider the social transformations expressed by the changes of perception.
The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
Benjamin discusses how people perceive the world through the senses and argues that this perception can be both naturally and historically determined. By this he means that even though the scholars were the first to question the organization of perception at that time, their views were limited by the significant yet formal hallmark which was typical in the late Roman times. They didn't consider the social transformations expressed by the changes of perception.
In order to define the term aura, we first have to understand the concepts of uniqueness and authenticity in art and technical reproduction. Authenticity could be defined as unique, real or true. Authentication is distinguishing fake from authentic, recognizing unadulterated work of art from fake one.
An aura of a work of art is being destroyed when mechanical reproduction happens and the art as a cult (in religious context for example) transforms into an art which has exhibition value. Aura requires authenticity, but there is no authenticity without its destruction in mechanical reproduction. So there's a bit of a paradox with the destruction of an aura. One can even say that the idea of authentic art appears only when the art is under the threat of mechanical reproduction. This however, makes me a little confused. It is difficult to understand that the aura of an original art piece is destroyed, even though it was mechanically reproduced. It still doesn't make the unique one any less unique, the rest are just copies – right?
Benjamin argues also that our perception of art changes all the time. If you go to see a piece of art for the first time, you sense it differently than the one having viewed it a 100 times before. It's a matter of experience giving you just enough knowledge to expect something compared to the one that has no expectations whatsoever.
An aura of a work of art is being destroyed when mechanical reproduction happens and the art as a cult (in religious context for example) transforms into an art which has exhibition value. Aura requires authenticity, but there is no authenticity without its destruction in mechanical reproduction. So there's a bit of a paradox with the destruction of an aura. One can even say that the idea of authentic art appears only when the art is under the threat of mechanical reproduction. This however, makes me a little confused. It is difficult to understand that the aura of an original art piece is destroyed, even though it was mechanically reproduced. It still doesn't make the unique one any less unique, the rest are just copies – right?
Benjamin argues also that our perception of art changes all the time. If you go to see a piece of art for the first time, you sense it differently than the one having viewed it a 100 times before. It's a matter of experience giving you just enough knowledge to expect something compared to the one that has no expectations whatsoever.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti