‘The name of dialectics says no more, to begin with, than that objects do not go into their
concepts without leaving a remainder, that they come to contradict the traditional norm
of adequacy’. Discuss with reference to Adorno and Hegel.
The writing of Adorno and Hegel on Dialectics is or could be said to be perplexing.
Reading such books of theirs tends to illustrate some form of huge generalisations which is
highly impressionable to experimental confirmation, materials that are not backed up
through lightly organising of evidence, but through evenly motivated cases. Myth could be
said to be enlightenment as such that enlightenment then relapse to what is basically called
mythology. Hence, the chronicles of civilisation is the reservation of a sacrifice. Moreover,
reading such materials tends to illustrate that the narrative does not flow from barbarism to
civilisation but it rather can be depicted to flow from civilisation to barbarism. Perhaps it is
due to the anthropological and historical sources. It can be depicted as a modern
philosophical representation and fragments. It also illustrates the political and social
concept representation within twentieth century period. Adorns Negative dialectics
criticises and also integrates the philosophy of Hegel. For the purpose of this essay aims to
explore, discuss and analyse the subject of dialectic with reference to Adorno and Hegel.
Firstly, it will examine the representations of dialectics. Secondly, it will critically analyse
Adorno and Hegel’s perspectives on dialectics. Lastly, it will conclude drawing together on
various key elements of both Adorno and Hegel Dialectics.
Dialectic of enlightenment is not however narrative, even though it surely include
narrative segments. As a substitute it is structured correctively so as to explain the two
theses: myth is already enlightenment; and enlightenment reverts to mythology (Jarvis,
1998: 22). The modern and the ancient does not delegate available and drastically separate
grouping but rather notions as such that rest on counterpart if they are to promote some
1|Page
, sort of meaning. Contemporary society that we reside today supplies humans with our
belief of what is new, it is as well oldest, such society having the longest history (Merleau-
Ponty, 1955: 35-37). If our focus is on the fact that enlightenment regress to mythology,
then we would be concluding as a misunderstanding labour or effect that the different
authors are implicit to be voicing that the enlightenment is an awful thing. Reversing of
enlightenment is not what Adorno would be interested in (Jarvis, 1998: 22-24). Adorno is
basically interested in the question of which way knowledge could turn out to be the
disbanding of domination. That is to say that rationalistic and positivistic notion of
enlightenment cannot be said to enlightened enough (Jarvis, 1998: 22-24). What we
experience is the representation of reason as such that is mythical, instead of totally
rational. This is due to the fact that it suppresses instead of revealing on the basis of its
relation towards tradition and myth.
The question could be asked as to what it means for dialectic to be negative. Jarvis
(1998: 165) illustrating Adorno’s view that dialectical thinking differs from identity thinking
in several ways, such as, the aim of dialectical thinking is to express what something actually
is. On the other hand, identity thinking aims to produce what something falls into or belongs
to, in which it is a form of a representative. Hence, that something of what is not itself
(Jarvis, 1998: 165). These can be depicted in Hegel’s immediate view as in the Encyclopaedia
Logic which states that, ‘The untruth of the immediate judgement lies in the incongruity
between its form and its content’ (Jarvis, 1998: 165). Hegel aims to promote the fact that
immediate judgement could be correct but not necessarily totally true. Identity thinking
aims to understand the overall sum of the accurate classification of something. Such
thinking suggests that we could only understand any object only at the time when totally
2|Page
concepts without leaving a remainder, that they come to contradict the traditional norm
of adequacy’. Discuss with reference to Adorno and Hegel.
The writing of Adorno and Hegel on Dialectics is or could be said to be perplexing.
Reading such books of theirs tends to illustrate some form of huge generalisations which is
highly impressionable to experimental confirmation, materials that are not backed up
through lightly organising of evidence, but through evenly motivated cases. Myth could be
said to be enlightenment as such that enlightenment then relapse to what is basically called
mythology. Hence, the chronicles of civilisation is the reservation of a sacrifice. Moreover,
reading such materials tends to illustrate that the narrative does not flow from barbarism to
civilisation but it rather can be depicted to flow from civilisation to barbarism. Perhaps it is
due to the anthropological and historical sources. It can be depicted as a modern
philosophical representation and fragments. It also illustrates the political and social
concept representation within twentieth century period. Adorns Negative dialectics
criticises and also integrates the philosophy of Hegel. For the purpose of this essay aims to
explore, discuss and analyse the subject of dialectic with reference to Adorno and Hegel.
Firstly, it will examine the representations of dialectics. Secondly, it will critically analyse
Adorno and Hegel’s perspectives on dialectics. Lastly, it will conclude drawing together on
various key elements of both Adorno and Hegel Dialectics.
Dialectic of enlightenment is not however narrative, even though it surely include
narrative segments. As a substitute it is structured correctively so as to explain the two
theses: myth is already enlightenment; and enlightenment reverts to mythology (Jarvis,
1998: 22). The modern and the ancient does not delegate available and drastically separate
grouping but rather notions as such that rest on counterpart if they are to promote some
1|Page
, sort of meaning. Contemporary society that we reside today supplies humans with our
belief of what is new, it is as well oldest, such society having the longest history (Merleau-
Ponty, 1955: 35-37). If our focus is on the fact that enlightenment regress to mythology,
then we would be concluding as a misunderstanding labour or effect that the different
authors are implicit to be voicing that the enlightenment is an awful thing. Reversing of
enlightenment is not what Adorno would be interested in (Jarvis, 1998: 22-24). Adorno is
basically interested in the question of which way knowledge could turn out to be the
disbanding of domination. That is to say that rationalistic and positivistic notion of
enlightenment cannot be said to enlightened enough (Jarvis, 1998: 22-24). What we
experience is the representation of reason as such that is mythical, instead of totally
rational. This is due to the fact that it suppresses instead of revealing on the basis of its
relation towards tradition and myth.
The question could be asked as to what it means for dialectic to be negative. Jarvis
(1998: 165) illustrating Adorno’s view that dialectical thinking differs from identity thinking
in several ways, such as, the aim of dialectical thinking is to express what something actually
is. On the other hand, identity thinking aims to produce what something falls into or belongs
to, in which it is a form of a representative. Hence, that something of what is not itself
(Jarvis, 1998: 165). These can be depicted in Hegel’s immediate view as in the Encyclopaedia
Logic which states that, ‘The untruth of the immediate judgement lies in the incongruity
between its form and its content’ (Jarvis, 1998: 165). Hegel aims to promote the fact that
immediate judgement could be correct but not necessarily totally true. Identity thinking
aims to understand the overall sum of the accurate classification of something. Such
thinking suggests that we could only understand any object only at the time when totally
2|Page
