Theme 2 (pre)

Dialectic of Enlightenment

1. What is "Enlightenment"?

Enlightenment is something that in its core is aimed at liberating people from fear and could be described as “the advance of thought”. You could look at enlightenment as “true” knowledge because it’s often used to disregard hoax or myths. When someone is using myths to gain power over others, often with the help of fear, enlightenment when exposing the myth liberates the people under the influense of the myth.

2. What is "Dialectic"?

Dialectic is a form of argument that resolves around a disagreement as most argument does. The difference from most arguments however is that the parts of the argument aren’t working against eachother but rather with eachother to discover the truth of the matter. This is often done with the help of reasoned arguments and is not to be confused with a debate. In a debate the parts of the argument often seek to be “correct” or atleast make the other part or other people think that they are correct. In a debate there is usually a “winner” while in a dialectic, as mentioned before, the parts involved work together.

3. What is "Nominalism" and why is it an important concept in the text?

Nominalism is a doctrine that states that various objects that goes under the same name have nothing in common but their previously stated name. The object that exists in time and space doesn’t have anything else than the name in common with the name of the same object, that in it self also is a object although an abstract one. For example the word “tree” doesn’t exist in time and space but it is instead a way of considering the object that actually exists, in this case a tree.

4. What is the meaning and function of "myth" in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument?

Myth is what you could call “false knowledge” and usually comes in the forms of superstition or subjective individual experiences. Myth is the counterpart to enlightenment and once enlightenment is achieved about something the myth loses its “power” and is exposed as the “false knowledge”. The people spreading the myth doesn’t always know that it’s a myth and often think it’s enlightenment they are spreading.

"The Work of Art in the Age of Technical Reproductivity"

1. In the beginning of the essay, Benjamin talks about the relation between "superstructure" and "substructure" in the capitalist order of production. What do the concepts "superstructure" and "substructure" mean in this context and what is the point of analyzing cultural production from a Marxist perspective?

The concepts as I understand them describes the connection between production and economy. Substructure is all about the conditions of production and the systems within economics and politics. The superstructure however is reffering to the culture of men, religion and their practice. Since our culture and religion are dependent on the economic and political system in some sense and therefore superstructure is dependent on the substructure.

2. Does culture have revolutionary potentials (according to Benjamin)? If so, describe these potentials. Does Benjamin's perspective differ from the perspective of Adorno & Horkheimer in this regard?

The short answer to this question would be “yes”, Benjamin thinks culture have revolutionary potentials. He talks about how pictures became moving images with sound, movies and this could make way for a social revolution according to himself.

I think Benjamin and Adorno & Horkheimer have different understandings and views of how culture can have revolutionary potentials. I believe this because Adorno & Horkheimer says that culture that has the purpose to entertain doesn’t result in intellectual insights and that it is technology that has revolutionary potentials.

3. Benjamin discusses how people perceive the world through the senses and argues that this perception can be both naturally and historically determined. What does this mean? Give some examples of historically determined perception (from Benjamin's essay and/or other contexts).

When Benjamin says that perception can be both naturally and historically determined I understand it as this. When people percieve something it is important in which medium the perception is done and what senses are used. We all percieve things differently and we also percieve different things and therefore nature itself matters. But since nature and the circumstances around us change with time the historical individual circumstances can determine the perception. Examples of this is the changed way of looking at and understanding art that happened with the late Roman art.

4. What does Benjamin mean by the term "aura"? Are there different kinds of aura in natural objects compared to art objects?

The term aura refers to different things depending if it’s the aura of a natural object or an art object. The aura of a object represents the object’s unique “attachment” to time and space and its authenticity. A persons charisma is something very hard to measure or explain and this is a example of a humans aura, the aura of a natural “object”. The difference between natural objects and art objects is the fact that natural objects are unique. Art are often reproductions of something, a photograph is a reproduction of what the photo is supposed to represent for example. When reproducing something it’s aura changes and the authenticity decrease. If you take an object from its context completely you, in doing so, destroys the aura of said object.