Theodor W. Adorno

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Theodor W. Adorno
Max Horkheimer (front left), Theodor Adorno (front right), and Jürgen Habermas (in the background, right), in 1964 in Heidelberg
Born (1903-09-11)September 11, 1903
Frankfurt am Main, Hesse-Nassau, Prussia, Germany
Died August 6, 1969(1969-08-06) (aged 65)
Visp, Visp, Valais, Switzerland
Residence Germany
Nationality German
Other names Theodor Ludwig Adorno Wellington
Era 20th century philosophy
Region Western philosophy
School Critical theory, Marxism
Main interests
Social theory, sociology, psychoanalysis, epistemology, aesthetics, musicology, mass media
Notable ideas
Criticism of "actionism,"[1] modernist art opposes the conventional ordering of experience found in the mass media,[2][3] the paradox of aesthetics,[4] negative dialectics

Theodor W. Adorno (September 11, 1903 – August 6, 1969) was a German sociologist, philosopher, composer, and music theorist. He designed the F-scale with other researchers at the University of California. This scale tried to measure "the authoritarian personality", the "F" standing for "Fascist". He wrote about this with them in the controversial 1950 book The Authoritarian Personality. He was a Marxist.

References[change | change source]

  1. Christine Fillion, "Adorno's Marginalien zu Theorie und Praxis: In Praise of Discontinuity", Humanitas, Volume 2, Issue 1, Fall 2012.
  2. Theodor W. Adorno "Commitment", in: Andrew Arato, Eike Gebhardt (eds.), The Essential Frankfurt School Reader, Continuum, 1978, pp. 300–318 (essay translated by Francis McDonagh).
  3. Gary Day, Literary Criticism: A New History, Edinburgh University Press, 2008, p. 265.
  4. "[Art's] paradoxical task is to attest to the lack of concord while at the same time working to abolish discordance" (Adorno as quoted by James Martin Harding, Adorno and "a Writing of the Ruins", SUNY Press, 1997, p. 30; variant translation by Robert Hullot-Kentor: Adorno, Aesthetic Theory, 1997, University of Minnesota Press, p. 168: "Paradoxically, art must testify to the unreconciled and at the same time envision its reconciliation; this is a possibility only for its nondiscursive language.").