What
is Enlightenment?
According to the authors, the Enlightenment could be seen
as the liberation of thought from the superstitious and religious suppression of
the dark middle ages. This is important because a world where myths and
religion decides what is right and what is wrong does not encourage curiosity, progression
or scientific development. The Enlightenment seeks to explain things from a
logical point of view as seen by the following quote: “For the enlightenment,
anything that cannot be resolved into numbers, and ultimately into one, is
illusion”.
Something that is important to notice is that most
people fear what they cannot understand. “The unknown” or the mysterious used
to be something that ordinary people should stay away from, or something only
to be addressed by priests and powerful religious people. In this sense the Enlightenment
could also be seen as a democratic movement, since it seeks to get rid of the
fear and replace it with knowledge. With knowledge and truth available in every
part of society, power is moved from being held be a few to being held by the
people. I believe that this is one of the main reasons why the Enlightenment
was discouraged by the church.
What
is the meaning and function of “myth” in Adorno and Horkheimer’s argument?
The way I see it, a myth is the complete opposite of
what the Enlightenment stands for. This is seen in a quote from the Preface,
stating that: “False clarity is only another name for myth. Myth was always obscure
and luminous at once.” A myth tries to give a superstitious explanation to a phenomenon
(luminous), but in reality it hides the real truth (obscure).
I think a good
example of a myth would be “Scylla and Charybdis” (from Greek mythology), where
these sea monsters in reality are just whirlpools and rocks. Here we clearly
see how obscure the myth is, since it hides something so ordinary as a rock or
a whirlpool. In this case the function of a myth is quite obvious. As stated in
the previous question most people fear what they cannot understand. A myth is a
creation of our imagination that is trying to calm people with a “reasonable” explanation to a mysterious phenomenon.
What
are the “old” and “new” media that are discussed in the Dialectic of
Enlightenment?
Before answering this question, it is important to
know that this book was written in the 1940’s. In some chapters it is very
obvious that the authors do not have the same view of old and new media as
people have today.
So, from what I understand the authors seem to think
that the main driving forces of “old media” are creativity, joy and personal
fulfillment. Examples of such media could be paintings, sculptures other “handmade”
creations.
New media, on the other hand, have other motifs and
incentives. This becomes very clear in the following quote by the authors,
stating that “films and radio no longer need to present themselves as art. The
truth that they are nothing but business is used as an ideology to legitimize
the trash the intentionally produce.” Here we see the main difference between
old media and new media; old media is considered to be real art whereas new media is just pure capitalism and business.
What
is meant by “culture industry”?
According to Adorno and Horkhemier, the culture
industry is something that was created by the liberal industrial countries
(most likely referring to the US and the UK). The main components of this
industry are cinema, radio, jazz and magazines. It seems as if the authors are not
very fond of the “standardized products” of the culture industry, since it could
be used to manipulate and centralize power to a few.
What
is the relationship between mass media and “mass deception”, according to
Adorno and Horkheimer?
Mass deception could be seen as a product or a
consequence of mass media. According to the authors most of the mass media is
trash, and it is only produced to make money. Since mass media reaches millions
of people, it could easily be used to deceive or trick consumers. I think this
is very clear in some of today’s commercials, only produced to “fool” or trick
consumers into buying a certain company’s products.
Please
identify one or two concepts/terms that you find particularly interesting.
Motivate your choice.
I have always like the Enlightenment, mainly because
it seeks to produce reasonable answers to (sometimes) unreasonable events. I
see myself as a person who trusts logic and science, and therefore I think the Enlightenment
has been one of the most important events of the past thousand years. I am also
impressed by the brilliant minds that were active during this period such as
Newton, Voltaire and the Swedish scientist Swedenborg.
Hej Olle, I was wondering what you would think Adorno and Horkheimer would think of the new media technologies today? Looking at other people's blogs it seems like the general accordance is that they would be horrified and dismayed at the point in which the culture industry has gotten to now. Is there any redeeming features in your opinion of new media today?
SvaraRaderaI agree with you to some extent, but I also think that there are benefits of the current media technologies. It is true that the culture industry in general is more about money/capitalism than ever before, but I also think that the Internet have helped to redistribute some of the power concentration. One of Adorno and Horkheimer's main arguments is that the culture industry concentrates power to a few powerful people. To me it is clear that the Internet is doing the opposite, giving "ordinary people" a way to be seen by a large audience and convey their own message or opinion. Examples of such services are blogs, Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc. A more concrete example would be the Arabic Spring.
RaderaI see your point about the purpose of myth, mainly is a tale to explain phenomena we were not able to explain and still there are many mysteries in our universe.
SvaraRaderaFor instance any ancient civilization has its own creation myth, nowadays we know about the Big Bang, scientist perfectly described backwards physical forces up till what they call "the Planck epoch", 10^(−43) -(0, 43 zeros and 1)- seconds after it but still we don't know what happened before.
Why do you think we do not use myth anymore to explain this?
I think some people still like to use a "myth" to explain the creation of the universe or what happened before the universe was created. If we look at the States we see that some people still believe that the Earth was created by God roughly 6 000 years ago.
RaderaBut I guess that you are referring to the scientific community and why they do not try to explain what happened before the Big Bang. I believe that what happened before the Big Bang is "outside" of the reach of science. The basis of science is that it has to be based on observations, experiments and falsifiability. If a scientist makes a claim of something that happened before the Big Bang, it is impossible for another scientist to try to verify or dismiss that claim. Therefore such a claim is not scientific, and there is no point to try to discuss such events in a scientific manner.
There is a very good example of this coined by the philosopher Russell (that we read in Theme 1). It is called Russell's teapot and you can read about it here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot
Den här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.
SvaraRaderaDen här kommentaren har tagits bort av skribenten.
SvaraRadera