作者简介

John Abromeit is an assistant professor in the Department of History and Social Studies Education at the State University of New York, Buffalo. He is the co-editor of Herbert Marcuse: Heideggerian Marxism (2005) and Herbert Marcuse: A Critical Reader (2004), and his articles and book reviews have appeared in Theory and Society; Theory, Culture and Society; Radical Philosophy and Constellations. Professor Abromeit previously held a Harper–Schmidt postdoctoral position in the social sciences in the University of Chicago Society of Fellows.

内容简介

This book is the first comprehensive intellectual biography of Max Horkheimer during the early and middle phases of his life (1895-1941). Drawing on unexamined new sources, John Abromeit describes the critical details of Horkheimer's intellectual development. This study recovers and reconstructs the model of early Critical Theory that guided the work of the Institute for Social Research in the 1930s. Horkheimer is remembered primarily as the co-author of Dialectic of Enlightenment, which he wrote with Theodor W. Adorno in the early 1940s. But few people realize that Horkheimer and Adorno did not begin working together seriously until the late 1930s or that the model of Critical Theory developed by Horkheimer and Erich Fromm in the late 1920s and early 1930s differs in crucial ways from Dialectic of Enlightenment. Abromeit highlights the ways in which Horkheimer's early Critical Theory remains relevant to contemporary theoretical discussions in a wide variety of fields.


John Abromeit is an assistant professor in the Department of History and Social Studies Education at the State University of New York, Buffalo. He is the co-editor of Herbert Marcuse: Heideggerian Marxism (2005) and Herbert Marcuse: A Critical Reader (2004), and his articles and book reviews have appeared in Theory and Society; Theory, Culture and Society; Radical Philosophy an...

下载地址

豆瓣评论

  • 老爹
    作者对MH整体工作的重估持鲜明立场。20-30年代发展出的差异化的、历史化的社会理论(资产阶级社会的辩证法)相较于40年代DA中体现的历史哲学更为作者青睐。但问题在于,作者虽然从字面上辨识出了本雅明历史哲学论题在DA中的明显痕迹,但DA又究竟在多大程度上可以被理解成不论何种形式的(如马克思主义的)历史哲学仍然存疑。其实作者也触及了这一问题,但他却仅在主题的丰富性上(如文化工业等)质疑了DA还原为历史哲学的可行性。作者或许未曾注意,DA中普遍性和特殊性的陈述相互交织的文体特点使其内在的理论宣称获得了一种独特的美学形象,它潜在地开辟了超越历史哲学的路径:一方面,DA有意识地重构出了毫无出路的历史哲学,但另一方面,通过在极端之间的摆荡(从康德到萨德,从纳粹到自由主义等),又能与前者保持相当的距离。04-05
  • Hier Tanze
    学术典范! Abromeit想要恢复霍克海默40年代以前的开放的“资产阶级社会的辩证法”,霍克海默以跨学科的姿态细致入微地考察了不同国家、阶段和独特思想家的观念,并在马克思主义对经济运动过程的关注之外加上精神分析,关心权威、家庭等复杂的历史中介。 作者认为,阿多诺的反历史主义、对献祭式理性存在于整个西方历史之中的观念,和波洛克对国家资本主义作为西方统一趋势的强调,带给霍克海默并不积极的影响,使得霍克海默放弃了早年差异化的、历史化的精细视角。不过,作者同样承认,阿多诺式的“历史在真理中”,实际上是对法西斯主义当下历史的回应,强调历史的价值在于与当下相关的方面,而不是复原历史,这一点仍是有意义的。除了哈贝马斯的实用主义语言学,霍克海默同样提供了超越意识哲学的方式,甚至可以填补语言学转向的缺陷。01-11
  • 魏司马的光
    把霍克海默对阿多诺的接受过程论述得既详细又有趣01-16

猜你喜欢

大家都喜欢