DOCSLIB.ORG

ST, Phd Masterdoc, 14.02.2016

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
ST, Phd Masterdoc, 14.02.2016 Bilderverbot: Adorno & the Ban on Images Sebastian Truskolaski Goldsmiths College, University of London PhD in Visual Cultures February 2016 1 Declaration: I, Sebastian Truskolaski, hereby confirm that the content of this thesis is entirely my own. Signature:_______________________________________ Date:_______________ 2 Acknowledgments: I’d like to thank my family, my supervisors and my friends who generously commented on sections of this thesis. Vielen Dank. 3 Abstract: My thesis examines the significance of Theodor W. Adorno’s recurrent reference to the Old Testament ban on making images of God: the ‘Bilderverbot’. In particular I focus on three facets of this figure that occur at prominent junctures of Adorno’s work: his ‘imageless materialism’ (Chapter One), his ‘inverse theology’ (Chapter Two) and his ‘negative aesthetics’ (Chapter Three). In each case I argue that Adorno strips the image ban of its religious associations and enlists it in the service of a broadly Marxian critique of capitalist modernity. The ban on picturing the absolute is rendered as a ban on pre-determining a future in which all historical antagonisms are reconciled. As Adorno argues, only an unflinching criticism of the present can throw into relief the contours of an ‘imageless’ Utopia. I approach Adorno’s writings with a view to his sources, many of which contain notable references to the image ban that span the history of modern German thought. They include: Marx and Lukács, Benjamin and Bloch, Kant and Hegel, as well as Hölderlin, Kafka and Schoenberg. By emphasising these elective affinities, I aim to shed light on Adorno’s singular application of the figure of the image ban to his critical project. In this regard, I hope to dispense with certain prevalent characterisations of Adorno as a quietistic aesthete advanced by critics such as Habermas, Taubes and Agamben. Far from designating a merely historical curio, I argue that Adorno’s singular appropriation of the image ban serves as a potent model for thinking an aesthetics of resistance in the present. 4 Table of Contents: Title Page...………………………………………………………………………………….....1 Declaration…………………………………………………………………………………..…2 Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………….3 Abstract………………………………………………………………………………………...4 Table of Contents………………………………………………………………………………5 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………...168 Image Credits………………………………………………………………………………..179 *** Prelude: Adorno and the Ban on Images……………………………………………………8 Chapter One: Imageless Materialism……………………………………………………...17 Part I: Adorno & Materialism………………………………………………………...21 i.) The Theory of Reflection…………………………………………………..21 a.) Engels……………………………………………………………...22 b.) Lenin...…………………………………………………………….24 ii.) Adorno’s Critique of Reflection Theory…………………………………..28 a.) Hegel……………………………………………………………….29 b.) Atomism…………………………………………………………...32 iii.) Speculative Realism……………………………………………………...35 a.) Correlationism……………………………………………………..37 b.) Hume’s Problem…………………………………………………...40 Conclusion…………………………………………………….43 Part II: Adorno & The Image Ban…………………………………………………….44 i.) Image & Imagelessness.…………………………………………………...45 a.) Inversion…………………………………………………………...46 b.) Negation…………………………………………………………...50 ii.) Adorno’s Concept of Materialism………………………………………...53 a.) Primacy of the Object……..………………………………………54 5 b.) Suffering…………………………………………………………..58 Conclusion…………………………………………………….60 Chapter Two: Inverse Theology:.…………………………………………………………..62 Part I: Adorno & Theology…………………………………………………………...66 i.) Life & Work………………………………………………………………..66 ii.) Negative Universal History: Religion – Theology – Metaphysics………..68 a.) Negative Universal History………………………………………..69 b.) Dialectic of Reason………………………………………………..71 Religion……………………………………………………….74 Theology………………………………………………………76 a.) Reason & Revelation…………………………………76 b.) Negative Theology..………………………………….81 Metaphysics…………………………………………………..83 a.) Metaphysics at the Time of its Fall……..……………85 b.) Solidarity with Metaphysics...………..………………86 iii.) Capitalism as Religion……………………………………………………88 a.) Benjamin’s Fragment ‘Capitalism as Religion’…………………...89 b.) The Capitalist Cult Religion…...………………………………….90 ‘Guilt History’….………………...…………………………...92 iv.) Secularisation…………………………………………………………….96 a.) Blumenberg………………………………………………………..97 b.) Agamben…………………………………………………………..99 c.) Freud...…...………………………………………………………102 Part II: Adorno’s Inverse Theology…………………………………………………103 i.) Inversion (ii)………………………………………………………………105 ii.) ‘As If’…………………………………………………………………….107 Conclusion…………………………………………………...111 Chapter Three: Negative Aesthetics.……………………………………………………...113 Part I: Aesthetics & Bilderverbot…………………………………………………....116 i.) Kant……………………………………………………………………….117 a.) Critique of the Power of Judgement……………………………...117 6 b.) Beauty & Sublimity………………………………………………119 ‘Analytic of the Beautiful’…………………………………...119 ‘Analytic of the Sublime’……………………………………124 ii.) Lyotard…………………………………………………………………...128 a.) Lyotard, Kant & the Imageless Sublime…...…………………….129 b.) Lyotard, Adorno & Poetry After Auschwitz…………………….133 iii.) Hegel…………………………………………………………………….136 a.) The Denigration of Natural Beauty………………………………137 ‘The Idea as Life’……………………………………………138 ‘Deficiency of Natural Beauty’……………………………...139 b.) Hegel & the Imageless Sublime…………………………………141 ‘The Particular Forms of Art – The Symbolic’.……………..142 Judaism & Sublimity………………………………………...144 Conclusion…………………………………………………...145 Part II: Natural Beauty & Bilderverbot……………………………………………………...146 i.) Adorno’s Return to Natural Beauty………………………………………………148 ii.) Art, Nature & Beauty in Capitalist Modernity…………………………………..150 The Promise of Natural Beauty……………………………………………...152 a.) Promise……………………………………………………………..152 b.) Remembrance……………………………………………………....153 c.) Language……………………………………………………………154 iii.) Imagelessness & Natural Beauty (Conclusion)….……………………………...157 Reprise: ‘Zum Ende’..……………………………………………………………………..161 7 Prelude: Adorno and the Ban on Images “Die Kinder haben keine Zukunft. Sie fürchten sich vor der ganzen Welt. Sie machen sich kein Bild von ihr, nur von dem Hüben und Drüben, denn es läßt sich mit Kreidestrichen begrenzen.”1 Ingeborg Bachmann In an essay titled ‘Sacred Fragment’ (1963), Theodor W. Adorno gestures towards an irreducible iconoclasm at the heart of Arnold Schoenberg’s unfinished opera Moses und Aron (1932).2 Schoenberg’s Exodus-adaptation “is in pieces”, we are told; it is “fragmentary, like the tables of the law which Moses smashed”.3 This sense of fragmentation is thematised in Act Two, Scene Four of Schoenberg’s libretto – an episode that has been memorably committed to film by the French directors Jean-Marie Straub and Danièle Huillet.4 It portrays Moses’ descent from Mount Sinai where he had received the tables with the Ten Commandments “written with the finger of God”.5 Upon returning, Moses finds that the Israelites had grown restless during his forty-day absence. They had urged his brother Aron to reinstate their old religious ways: “[g]ive us back our Gods to worship; let them bring us order”.6 Under the threat of death, Aron had relented. “O Israel, I return your gods to you, and also give you to them, just as you have demanded”.7 Famously, Aron had proceeded to fashion an effigy in the form of a golden calf: “common and visible, imaged in gold”.8 The Israelites, in turn, had frenziedly worshipped this idol. Schoenberg’s stage notes laconically sum up the action: “[b]urnt offerings are brought to 1 “The children have no future. They are afraid of the whole world. They do not make themselves an image of it; they only picture hopscotch squares, for they can be delimited in chalk.” Ingeborg Bachmann, “Jugend in einer österreichischen Stadt”, in Werke, Bd. 2: Erzählungen, ed. Christine Koschel, Inge von Weidenbaum & Clemens Münster (Munich: Piper, 1980), 86-87 [My translation] 2 Schoenberg composed the first two acts of his opera between 1930-32, i.e. before his re-conversion to Judaism and his forced emigration to the United States in 1933. Schoenberg omitted the second ‘a’ in his spelling of Aron because the amount of letters in the title would have otherwise tallied 13 – a bad omen, in his view. The English translators of Schoenberg’s libretto apparently did not share his concern. Cf. Allen Shaw, Arnold Schoenberg’s Journey (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), 148 3 Theodor W. Adorno, “Sacred Fragment: Schoenberg’s ‘Moses und Aron’”, in Quasi Una Fantasia: Essays on Modern Music, trans. Rodney Livingstone (London: Verso, 1992), 225 4 Cf. Barton Bryg, “Musical Modernism and the Schoenberg Films”, in Landscapes of Resistance: The German Films of Danièle Huillet and Jean-Marie Straub (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995), 139-163 5 Exodus, 31:18 6 Arnold Schoenberg, “Moses and Aaron (Act Two, Scene Two)”, in Schoenberg’s ‘Moses and Aaron’, with the Complete Libretto in German and English, ed. Karl Wörner, trans. Paul Hamburger (London: Faber & Faber, 1963), 161 7 Ibid 8 Ibid [My emphasis] 8 the altar”; 9 “wild drunkenness overtakes everyone”; 10 “extravagant dancing”; 11 “blood off’rings”; 12 “Destruction and Suicide”; 13 “Erotic Orgy”. 14 Upon witnessing the Israelites’ idolatrous excesses, Moses furiously smashes the tables with the law: “[a]nd it came to pass, as soon as he came nigh unto the camp, that he saw the calf, and the dancing: and Moses’ anger waxed hot, and he cast the tables out of his hands, and brake them beneath the mount. And he took the calf which they had made, and burnt it in the fire, and ground it to powder, and strawed it upon
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Aleksandr Bogdanov and Systems Theory
    Democracy & Nature, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2000 Aleksandr Bogdanov and Systems Theory ARRAN GARE ABSTRACT The signi cance and potential of systems theory and complexity theory are best appreciated through an understanding of their origins. Arguably, their originator was the Russian philosopher and revolutionary, Aleksandr Bogdanov. Bogdanov anticipated later developments of systems theory and complexity theory in his efforts to lay the foundations for a new, post-capitalist culture and science. This science would overcome the division between the natural and the human sciences and enable workers to organise themselves and their productive activity. It would be central to the culture of a society in which class and gender divisions have been transcended. At the same time it would free people from the deformed thinking of class societies, enabling them to appreciate both the limitations and the signi cance of their environments and other forms of life. In this paper it is argued that whatever Bogdanov’s limitations, such a science is still required if we are to create a society free of class divisions, and that it is in this light that developments in systems theory and complexity theory should be judged. Aleksandr Bogdanov, the Russian revolutionary, philosopher and scientist, has a good claim to being regarded as the founder of systems theory.1 His ‘tektology’, that is, his new science of organisation, not only anticipated and probably in uenced the ideas of Ludwig von Bertalanffy—who must have been familiar with his work,2 but anticipated many of the ideas of the complexity theorists. As Simona Poustlinik commented at a recent conference on Bogdanov: It is remarkable the extent to which Bogdanov anticipated the ideas which were to be developed in systems thinking later in the twentieth century.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Science -----Paulk
    PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE -----PAULK. FEYERABEND----- However, it has also a quite decisive role in building the new science and in defending new theories against their well-entrenched predecessors. For example, this philosophy plays a most important part in the arguments about the Copernican system, in the development of optics, and in the Philosophy ofScience: A Subject with construction of a new and non-Aristotelian dynamics. Almost every work of Galileo is a mixture of philosophical, mathematical, and physical prin~ a Great Past ciples which collaborate intimately without giving the impression of in­ coherence. This is the heroic time of the scientific philosophy. The new philosophy is not content just to mirror a science that develops independ­ ently of it; nor is it so distant as to deal just with alternative philosophies. It plays an essential role in building up the new science that was to replace 1. While it should be possible, in a free society, to introduce, to ex­ the earlier doctrines.1 pound, to make propaganda for any subject, however absurd and however 3. Now it is interesting to see how this active and critical philosophy is immoral, to publish books and articles, to give lectures on any topic, it gradually replaced by a more conservative creed, how the new creed gener­ must also be possible to examine what is being expounded by reference, ates technical problems of its own which are in no way related to specific not to the internal standards of the subject (which may be but the method scientific problems (Hurne), and how there arises a special subject that according to which a particular madness is being pursued), but to stan­ codifies science without acting back on it (Kant).
    [Show full text]
  • Mach, Einstein, and the Search for Reality
    Mach, Einstein, and the Search for Reality The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Holton, Gerald. 1968. Mach, Einstein, and the Search for Reality. Daedalus 97 (2), Historical Population Studies (Spring, 1968): 636-673 Published Version https://www.jstor.org/stable/20023833 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:37902464 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA ANTICIPATIONS GERALD HOLTON Mach, Einstein, and the Search for Reality In the history of ideas of our century, there is a chapter that might be entitled "The Philosophical Pilgrimage of Albert Einstein," a pilgrimage from a philosophy of science in which sensationism and empiricism were at the center, to one in which the basis was a rational realism. This essay, a portion of a more extensive study,1 is concerned with Einstein's gradual philosophical reorientation, particularly as it has become discernible during the work on his largely unpublished scientific correspondence.2 The earliest known letter by Einstein takes us right into the middle of the case. It is dated 19 March 1901 and addressed to Wilhelm Ostwald.3 The immediate cause for Einstein's letter was his failure to receive an assistantship at the school where he had recently finished his formal studies, the Polytechnic Institute in Z?rich; he now turned to Ostwald to ask for a position at his laboratory, partly in the hope of receiving "the opportunity for further education." Einstein included a copy of his first publica tion, "Folgerungen aus den Capillarit?tserscheinungen" (Annalen d.
    [Show full text]
  • What Is Systems Theory?
    What is Systems Theory? Systems theory is an interdisciplinary theory about the nature of complex systems in nature, society, and science, and is a framework by which one can investigate and/or describe any group of objects that work together to produce some result. This could be a single organism, any organization or society, or any electro-mechanical or informational artifact. As a technical and general academic area of study it predominantly refers to the science of systems that resulted from Bertalanffy's General System Theory (GST), among others, in initiating what became a project of systems research and practice. Systems theoretical approaches were later appropriated in other fields, such as in the structural functionalist sociology of Talcott Parsons and Niklas Luhmann . Contents - 1 Overview - 2 History - 3 Developments in system theories - 3.1 General systems research and systems inquiry - 3.2 Cybernetics - 3.3 Complex adaptive systems - 4 Applications of system theories - 4.1 Living systems theory - 4.2 Organizational theory - 4.3 Software and computing - 4.4 Sociology and Sociocybernetics - 4.5 System dynamics - 4.6 Systems engineering - 4.7 Systems psychology - 5 See also - 6 References - 7 Further reading - 8 External links - 9 Organisations // Overview 1 / 20 What is Systems Theory? Margaret Mead was an influential figure in systems theory. Contemporary ideas from systems theory have grown with diversified areas, exemplified by the work of Béla H. Bánáthy, ecological systems with Howard T. Odum, Eugene Odum and Fritj of Capra , organizational theory and management with individuals such as Peter Senge , interdisciplinary study with areas like Human Resource Development from the work of Richard A.
    [Show full text]
  • Blood, Water and Mars: Soviet Science and the Alchemy for a New Man
    Central Washington University ScholarWorks@CWU All Master's Theses Master's Theses Spring 2019 Blood, Water and Mars: Soviet Science and the Alchemy for a New Man Sophie Y. Andarovna Central Washington University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd Part of the European History Commons, History of Science, Technology, and Medicine Commons, Intellectual History Commons, and the Russian Literature Commons Recommended Citation Andarovna, Sophie Y., "Blood, Water and Mars: Soviet Science and the Alchemy for a New Man" (2019). All Master's Theses. 1201. https://digitalcommons.cwu.edu/etd/1201 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Master's Theses at ScholarWorks@CWU. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@CWU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BLOOD, WATER AND MARS: SOVIET SCIENCE AND THE ALCHEMY FOR A NEW MAN __________________________________ A Thesis Presented to The Graduate Faculty Central Washington University ___________________________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts History ___________________________________ by Sophie Yennan Andarovna May 2019 CENTRAL WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY Graduate Studies We hereby approve the thesis of Sophie Yennan Andarovna Candidate for the degree of Master of Arts APPROVED FOR THE GRADUATE FACULTY ______________ _________________________________________ Dr. Roxanne Easley, Committee Chair ______________
    [Show full text]
  • Art and Technology Between the Usa and the Ussr, 1926 to 1933
    THE AMERIKA MACHINE: ART AND TECHNOLOGY BETWEEN THE USA AND THE USSR, 1926 TO 1933. BARNABY EMMETT HARAN PHD THESIS 2008 DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY OF ART UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON SUPERVISOR: PROFESSOR ANDREW HEMINGWAY UMI Number: U591491 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI U591491 Published by ProQuest LLC 2013. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 I, Bamaby Emmett Haran, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis. 3 ABSTRACT This thesis concerns the meeting of art and technology in the cultural arena of the American avant-garde during the late 1920s and early 1930s. It assesses the impact of Russian technological Modernism, especially Constructivism, in the United States, chiefly in New York where it was disseminated, mimicked, and redefined. It is based on the paradox that Americans travelling to Europe and Russia on cultural pilgrimages to escape America were greeted with ‘Amerikanismus’ and ‘Amerikanizm’, where America represented the vanguard of technological modernity.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction 11. I Have Approached This Subject in Greater Detail in J. D
    NOTES Introduction 11. I have approached this subject in greater detail in J. D. White, Karl Marx and the Intellectual Origins of Dialectical Materialism (Basingstoke and London, 1996). 12. V. I. Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 180. 13. K. Marx, Grundrisse, translated by M. Nicolaus (Harmondsworth, 1973), p. 408. 14. N. I. Ziber, Teoriia tsennosti i kapitala D. Rikardo v sviazi s pozdneishimi dopolneniiami i raz"iasneniiami. Opyt kritiko-ekonomicheskogo issledovaniia (Kiev, 1871). 15. N. G. Chernyshevskii, ‘Dopolnenie i primechaniia na pervuiu knigu politicheskoi ekonomii Dzhon Stiuarta Millia’, Sochineniia N. Chernyshevskogo, Vol. 3 (Geneva, 1869); ‘Ocherki iz politicheskoi ekonomii (po Milliu)’, Sochineniia N. Chernyshevskogo, Vol. 4 (Geneva, 1870). Reprinted in N. G. Chernyshevskii, Polnoe sobranie sochineniy, Vol. IX (Moscow, 1949). 16. Arkhiv K. Marksa i F. Engel'sa, Vols XI–XVI. 17. M. M. Kovalevskii, Obshchinnoe zemlevladenie, prichiny, khod i posledstviia ego razlozheniia (Moscow, 1879). 18. Marx to the editorial board of Otechestvennye zapiski, November 1877, in Karl Marx Frederick Engels Collected Works, Vol. 24, pp. 196–201. 19. Marx to Zasulich, 8 March 1881, in Karl Marx Frederick Engels Collected Works, Vol. 24, pp. 346–73. 10. It was published in the journal Vestnik Narodnoi Voli, no. 5 (1886). 11. D. Riazanov, ‘V Zasulich i K. Marks’, Arkhiv K. Marksa i F. Engel'sa, Vol. 1 (1924), pp. 269–86. 12. N. F. Daniel'son, ‘Ocherki nashego poreformennogo obshch- estvennogo khoziaistva’, Slovo, no. 10 (October 1880), pp. 77–143. 13. N. F. Daniel'son, Ocherki nashego poreformennogo obshchestvennogo khozi- aistva (St Petersburg, 1893). 14. V. V. Vorontsov, Sud'by kapitalizma v Rossii (St Petersburg, 1882).
    [Show full text]
  • Passmore, J. (1967). Logical Positivism. in P. Edwards (Ed.). the Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Vol. 5, 52- 57). New York: Macmillan
    Passmore, J. (1967). Logical Positivism. In P. Edwards (Ed.). The Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Vol. 5, 52- 57). New York: Macmillan. LOGICAL POSITIVISM is the name given in 1931 by A. E. Blumberg and Herbert Feigl to a set of philosophical ideas put forward by the Vienna circle. Synonymous expressions include "consistent empiricism," "logical empiricism," "scientific empiricism," and "logical neo-positivism." The name logical positivism is often, but misleadingly, used more broadly to include the "analytical" or "ordinary language philosophies developed at Cambridge and Oxford. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND The logical positivists thought of themselves as continuing a nineteenth-century Viennese empirical tradition, closely linked with British empiricism and culminating in the antimetaphysical, scientifically oriented teaching of Ernst Mach. In 1907 the mathematician Hans Hahn, the economist Otto Neurath, and the physicist Philipp Frank, all of whom were later to be prominent members of the Vienna circle, came together as an informal group to discuss the philosophy of science. They hoped to give an account of science which would do justice -as, they thought, Mach did not- to the central importance of mathematics, logic, and theoretical physics, without abandoning Mach's general doctrine that science is, fundamentally, the description of experience. As a solution to their problems, they looked to the "new positivism" of Poincare; in attempting to reconcile Mach and Poincare; they anticipated the main themes of logical positivism. In 1922, at the instigation of members of the "Vienna group," Moritz Schlick was invited to Vienna as professor, like Mach before him (1895-1901), in the philosophy of the inductive sciences. Schlick had been trained as a scientist under Max Planck and had won a name for himself as an interpreter of Einstein's theory of relativity.
    [Show full text]
  • The Comrades of the Past: the Soviet Enlightenment Between Negation
    Abstract: The paper constructs a concept of Soviet Enlightenment C R through the debate between Lenin and Bogdanov on the question of what I is proletarian culture and what is the relationship of the proletariat to the S The Comrades of I bourgeois knowledge. The paper starts with the overview of Bolshevik’s S political theory of spontaneity and organization. By referring to Adorno, Lukács and Lifshitz I show that this philosophical binary points to the & the Past: The Soviet dark rationalist side of the Soviet Enlightenment, but at the same time C demonstrate that this couple produces a critical reinvestigation of what R I is the now and what is the past. From here I try to elaborate two models T of the Soviet Enlightenment encyclopedic knowledge production that I Enlightenment Q equally calls to reformulate the past systems in the proletarian terms, but U differs in the understanding of the type of relationality that bridges the E past and the proletarian present. Lenin’s model rests on the “use value” / Between Negation of the historical past and proposes to appropriate it for the Socialist use, Volume 4 / while Bogdanov’s model treats past in terms of continuous comradeship Issue 2 between the labour of generations. I conclude by elaborating the idea of and Affirmation the comradeship in its relation to history, communism and knowledge production. Keywords: Soviet Enlightenment, Lenin and Bogdanov, proletarian culture, comradeship, encyclopaedia, dialectics of the old and the new. ‘It is not without reason that the proletarian avant-garde, irreconcilable in Maria Chehonadskih relation to the “cooperation of classes” is so willingly, where it depends on him, puts monuments to the great creators and workers of the past, who were not proletarians at all.
    [Show full text]
  • Continental Philosophy of Science: Mach, Duhem, and Bachelard Babette Babich Fordham University, [email protected]
    Fordham University Masthead Logo DigitalResearch@Fordham Articles and Chapters in Academic Book Philosophy Collections 2003 Continental Philosophy of Science: Mach, Duhem, and Bachelard Babette Babich Fordham University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://fordham.bepress.com/phil_babich Part of the Continental Philosophy Commons, and the Philosophy of Science Commons Recommended Citation Babich, Babette, "Continental Philosophy of Science: Mach, Duhem, and Bachelard" (2003). Articles and Chapters in Academic Book Collections. 5. https://fordham.bepress.com/phil_babich/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Philosophy at DigitalResearch@Fordham. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles and Chapters in Academic Book Collections by an authorized administrator of DigitalResearch@Fordham. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHAPTER 6 Philosophies of science Mach, Duhem, Bachelard Babette E.Babich THE TRADITION OF CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE If the philosophy of science is not typically represented as a ‘continental’ discipline it is nevertheless historically rooted in the tradition of continental thought. The different approaches to the philosophy of science apparent in the writings of Ernst Mach, Pierre Duhem and Gaston Bachelard suggest the range of these roots. But for a discussion of the tradition of continental philosophy of science—as the term ‘continental’ characterizes a contemporary style of philosophic thinking—it is important to emphasize that while Mach, Duhem and Bachelard may be said to be historically continental, a properly continental-style philosophy of science should not be ascribed to any one of them. Contemporary philosophy of science is pursued in what is largely an analytic or Anglo- American-style philosophic tradition.
    [Show full text]
  • Revolution and Culture: the Bogdanov-Lenin Controversy (Cornell, 1988) Library of Congress Cataloging-In-Publication Data Sochor, Zenovia A
    A. A. Bogdanov, 1873-1928 REVOLUTION AND CULTURE The Bogdanov-Lenin Controversy ZENOVIA A. SOCHOR Studies of the Harriman Institute CORNELL UNIVERSITY PRESS Ithaca and London Copyright © 1988 by Cornell University All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or parts thereof, must not be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the publisher. For information, address Cornell University Pres~, 124 Roberts Place, Ithaca, New York 14850. First published 1988 by Cornell University Press. • International Standard Book Number 0-8014-2088-1 Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 87-25063 Printed in the United States of America Librarians: Library of Congress cataloging information appears on the last page of the book. The paper in this book is acid-free and meets the guidelines for permanence and durability of the Committee on Production Guidelines for Book Longevity of the Council on Library Resources. To my parents, Joseph and Maria Sochor STUDIES OF THE HARRIMAN INSTITUTE Columbia University The W. Averell Harriman Institute for Advanced Study of the Soviet Union, Columbia University, sponsors the Studies of the Harriman Institute in the belief that their publication contributes to scholarly research and public understanding. In this way the Institute, while not necessarily endorsing their conclusions, is pleased to make available the results of some of the research conducted under its auspices. A list of the Studies appears at the back of the book. Contents Preface ix Part I Points of Departure 1. The Bogdanov-Lenin Controversy 3 2. Cultural Prerequisites of Revolution 21 3. Bogdanovism 42 Part II After October: Which Way to Socialism? 4.
    [Show full text]
  • Alexander Bogdanov and the Soviet Avant-Garde
    Prelude: Towards an Alternative Philosophical Genealogy of the Soviet Avant-Garde One of the most discussed concepts of the Soviet avant-garde – variously characterized as “construction,” “tectonics,” “production,” or “life-building” – may seem to refer 01/09 simultaneously to the formalist method in art and to a theory of social constructivism that departs from the idea of the “new Soviet man” and ends up with Stalin’s “engineers of the human soul.” The simultaneity of formalism and social constructivism normally explains the coexistence of the constructivist aesthetic program and the utilitarian politics of Maria Chehonadskih productivist art. As Benjamin Buchloh writes, constructivism passes from the expanded modernist aesthetics that “did not depart much The further from the modernist framework of bourgeois aesthetics than the point of Stofflichkeit of establishing models of epistemological and semiotic critique,” to the new industrialized the Universe: forms of art.1 Optimism about technology and media leads constructivists to totalitarian Stalinism.2 Yve-Alain Bois goes so far as to argue Alexander that the total instrumentalization of art is e inevitable when the critical modernist tradition is d r 3 Bogdanov and a abandoned. In other words, the great G - t achievements of the Soviet avant-garde conform n a v to the standards of European modernist A the Soviet t epistemologies, while utilitarian aesthetics and e i v its function in the context of Stalinism signifies a o S break or a black hole, which the narrative of art Avant-Garde e h t history can only explain by turning to ethical and d h n i a moral arguments against propaganda and k s v d o instrumentalization.
    [Show full text]