{"id":10,"date":"2019-08-30T12:37:43","date_gmt":"2019-08-30T16:37:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/critique1313\/?page_id=10"},"modified":"2020-02-22T10:58:09","modified_gmt":"2020-02-22T15:58:09","slug":"2-13","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/critique1313\/2-13\/","title":{"rendered":"2\/13 | Horkheimer and Adorno, <em>Critical Theory and Actuality of Philosophy<\/em>"},"content":{"rendered":"<h3 style=\"text-align: center;\"><iframe loading=\"lazy\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/ZwWlM6JSyo4\" width=\"560\" height=\"315\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\"><\/iframe><\/h3>\n<h1 style=\"text-align: center;\">Professors\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/critique1313\/axel-honneth\/\">Axel Honneth<\/a> and <a href=\"https:\/\/cgt.columbia.edu\/about\/people\/committee-faculty\/bernard-e-harcourt\/\">Bernard E. Harcourt<\/a><\/h1>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center;\">read and discuss<\/h2>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center;\">\u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/critique1313\/horkheimer-traditional-and-critical-theory-2\/\">Traditional and Critical Theory<\/a>&#8221; by Max Horkheimer<\/h2>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center;\">and \u201c<a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/critique1313\/files\/2019\/09\/adorno_actualityphilosophy.pdf\">The Actuality of Philosophy<\/a>\u201d by Theodor Adorno<\/h2>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center;\">at <a href=\"https:\/\/maisonfrancaise.org\/contact-and-directions\">Maison Fran\u00e7aise<\/a>, Columbia University<\/h2>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>September 25, 2019<\/strong><\/h2>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center;\"><strong>~~~\u00a0<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p>At Critique 2\/13, we turn to two texts: first, Horkheimer\u2019s 1937 article \u201cTraditional and Critical Theory,\u201d which set forth the blueprint of Horkheimer\u2019s vision of the research project and method of the Institute for Social Research at the University of Frankfurt; and second, Adorno\u2019s own blueprint, six years earlier in 1931, of his vision of philosophical research and method, in his lecture \u201cThe Actuality of Philosophy\u201d delivered as the inaugural lecture on the occasion of his entry into the philosophy department at the University of Frankfurt.<\/p>\n<p>We paired these two very different texts because of the subsequent history of Horkheimer and Adorno\u2019s close intellectual collaboration, in order to explore the tensions, hopefully fruitful, in their diverging points of departure.<\/p>\n<p>We are joined by Professor Axel Honneth, the Jack C. Weinstein Professor of the Humanities in the Department of Philosophy at Columbia University, the C4-Professor of Social Philosophy and the former director of the Institute for Social Research at the Goethe-Universit\u00e4t Frankfurt am Main.<\/p>\n<p>At our last seminar, Honneth proposed four different methods of reading\u2014but favored one, which he called the dialogical. By contrast to philological, ideological, or instrumental readings, Honneth leaned toward being in dialogue with a text: to reject what you cannot understand from the text, engage what you can, and be in conversation with your own ideas and work.<\/p>\n<p>It is this method that will guide Honneth\u2019s reading of these texts today. For Axel Honneth has been in dialogue with the writings of Horkheimer and Adorno\u2014especially Horkheimer, more so than Adorno\u2014for all of his intellectual life.<\/p>\n<p>Enough on method for now though\u2014or at least, on our reading method in this seminar Critique 13\/13\u2014let\u2019s turn now, or rather let\u2019s <em>return\u00a0<\/em>now to these two formative critical texts from the 1930s to see what work they can do for us, today.<\/p>\n<p>Welcome to Critique 2\/13!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Professors\u00a0Axel Honneth and Bernard E. Harcourt read and discuss \u201cTraditional and Critical Theory&#8221; by Max Horkheimer and \u201cThe Actuality of Philosophy\u201d by Theodor Adorno at Maison Fran\u00e7aise, Columbia University September 25, 2019 ~~~\u00a0 At Critique 2\/13, we turn to two&hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/critique1313\/2-13\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue Reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1603,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-10","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/critique1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/critique1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/critique1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/critique1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1603"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/critique1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/critique1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/10\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.law.columbia.edu\/critique1313\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}