While we live in a post-modern World - having the age of Enlightenment, the eighteenth century, far in our rear view mirror - the concept of Enlightenment is still a basic philosophical task. Its origin, its constitution and its goal are wildly disputed, unknown or undefined, whatever point of view might here be adequate. Still, Enlightenment is seen to be a determining part of human nature, of “what we are, what we think, what we do.” (Foucault, p.32) We still live (and an interesting question here would be: will we always live?) within the ‘shadow’ of the eighteenth century Enlightenment, even though the new era of modernity or post-modernity has been introduced. Since Enlightenment "dissolve[d] the injustice of the old inequality" (Adorno, p.12) of church, nobility, Bourgeoisie and the people, of mastery and serfdom with reason as its mediator, we face the problem of its side effects and its results, and - most importantly - its limits. Must man define his border to experience freedom (which is still within limits though they are not consciously felt, if these limits are wide enough), or can he overcome a reasonable reason in some way? Alternatively has institutionalised knowledge (with the help of religion) established a "building" of ideologies1 that is of eternal character? This leads to the question of possible "exits" from Enlightenment which already happens to have been a "way out" (Foucault, p.34) from immaturity, but is now mutilated to a new "prison" of human beings in post-modernity. Is the human mind ever to reach a state of "nirvana" or its secular utopia, a never available dream world; liberty of universals, the ultimate freedom? Will man ever be able to come back to paradise, now that he has eaten from the "tree of knowledge"? (Kantos, p.239)
This essay tries to elaborate on the post-modern view of Enlightenment through the perspective of Adorno and Horkheimer's "Dialectic of Enlightenment" and the contrary perspective of Foucault's essay, "What is Enlightenment?”
Table of Contents
Introduction to Enlightenment in Modernity
Adorno and Horkheimer, Concepts of Enlightenment
Michel Foucault, What is Enlightenment?
Conclusion – Modernity, Ethos, Knowledge, Dialectic
Objectives and Core Themes
This essay examines the conflicting interpretations of the Enlightenment in post-modern thought, specifically contrasting the pessimistic view presented by Adorno and Horkheimer with the more politically engaged "historico-critical" perspective of Michel Foucault, while evaluating the continued significance of defining the Enlightenment today.
- The dialectical tension between reason, myth, and human liberation.
- The institutionalization of knowledge as a new "prison" for the human mind.
- Comparative analysis of Adorno/Horkheimer’s critique versus Foucault’s ethos of modernity.
- The role of "transgression" in overcoming the limits imposed by reason.
- The persistence of "myth" within an apparently disenchanted, enlightened world.
Excerpt from the Book
Adorno and Horkheimer, Concepts of Enlightenment
Enlightenment in Adorno and Horkheimer's view is in many aspects disconnected from the common understanding. When we think of Enlightenment, we think of its prosperity in the eighteenth century - the age of Enlightenment - with the rise of reason, which has Kant and Descartes as its primary authorities. We also think of the liberation of knowledge of the doctrines of clerical and aristocratic classes, church and politics.
In contrast, Adorno and Horkheimer not only see the emergence of Enlightenment much earlier in history, but at the same time give Enlightenment a new face as a “totalitarian” (Adorno, p.6) and “radical” (Adorno, p.16) influence on man. This influence results in humanity’s biggest cultural shift ever, the change “from chaos to civilisation” (Adorno, p.17). Here we encounter a major discrepancy compared to the concept that Foucault uses. Adorno and Horkheimer locate the creation of enlightenment somewhere in the transition from prehistory to history and show a literary place in Homer's Odyssey where the moment of transition is preserved. (Adorno, p.34)
Summary of Chapters
Introduction to Enlightenment in Modernity: Explores the enduring philosophical relevance of the Enlightenment as a foundational influence on human nature and identity in a post-modern context.
Adorno and Horkheimer, Concepts of Enlightenment: Analyzes the Frankfurt School’s perspective on the Enlightenment as a totalitarian force that disenchanted the world but ultimately replaced myth with a new, systematic prison.
Michel Foucault, What is Enlightenment?: Examines Foucault’s "historico-critical" approach, which seeks to transcend the limitations of reason through an ethos that encourages the transgression of established boundaries.
Conclusion – Modernity, Ethos, Knowledge, Dialectic: Synthesizes the discussion by contrasting the fatalistic view of the dialectic with Foucault's attempt to use knowledge as a tool for regaining human liberty.
Keywords
Enlightenment, Adorno, Horkheimer, Foucault, Reason, Myth, Modernity, Post-modernism, Dialectic, Ethos, Transgression, Liberty, Knowledge, Totalitarianism, Critique.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this academic work?
The work provides a comparative analysis of how Enlightenment is theorized by the Frankfurt School (Adorno and Horkheimer) versus Michel Foucault, focusing on the implications of these views for human freedom.
What are the central thematic areas discussed?
The themes include the relationship between reason and domination, the persistent reappearance of myth, the role of institutionalized knowledge, and the possibilities for human autonomy in modern society.
What is the central research question?
The core inquiry concerns the nature of the Enlightenment as a defining force in modernity and asks whether humanity can break free from the "domination" imposed by reason.
Which scientific or analytical method is applied?
The essay utilizes a comparative textual analysis and a historico-critical methodological approach to evaluate philosophical perspectives on modernity and political existence.
What is covered in the main body of the text?
The main body contrasts Adorno and Horkheimer's pessimistic dialectical framework with Foucault's call for transgressive knowledge and an ethos of self-production as a means of navigation within the enlightened world.
Which key concepts characterize this work?
Key concepts include "mana" as a principle of equivalence, the "dialectical re-occurring of myth," the "blackmail" of the Enlightenment, and the "historico-critical" attitude.
How do Adorno and Horkheimer define the transition to the Enlightenment?
They argue that the Enlightenment emerged during the transition from prehistory to history, representing a shift from being ruled by nature to a state where man seeks sovereignty, only to be dominated by the very reason used to liberate him.
In what way does Foucault differ from Adorno and Horkheimer regarding the future of freedom?
While Adorno and Horkheimer view the Enlightenment as a one-way path toward a "deception of the masses," Foucault attempts to find "transgressive moments" that allow individuals to act upon the events that constitute them, potentially regaining a degree of liberty.
- Quote paper
- Kristian Klett (Author), 1999, What is Enlightenment? The Dialectic of Enlightenment, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/29419
