Talk:Minima Moralia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Philosophy: Literature / Social and political / Continental Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Philosophical literature
	Social and political philosophy
	Continental philosophy

Misc

To describe the work as "a seminal text in Critical Theory" does not seem entirely accurate. Even though related to critical theory, I fail to see this work as an attempt in theory, or as an attempt in science overall, rather than as an attempt in philosophy. Or perhaps I have not fully understood the meaning of the concept "Critical Theory", but if this work represents "Critical Theory", then "Critical Theory" has misused if not misunderstood the whole concept of theory.

It's a core part of what people who read critical theory read, canonical as such; the Frankfurt school, at least the famous ones, tended to conflate philosophy with theory as being essentially the same thing, since true theory and true philosophy would discover the injustices and horrors at the root of human reality as experienced during their time. It very well might be that they misunderstood theory. They've always been considered idiosyncratic. 50.153.135.137 (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Problems

Although I like most of what this article has to say, there are basic problems with it, for example, not even such basic information as the original German-language date of publication is given; and much of the information seems to be subjective analysis without adequate citation of whose analysis this is (obviously Adorno, for example, doesn't directly make a comparison between Mussolini and Berlusconi, etc.). (93.41.128.99 (talk) 01:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC))[reply]

I'm working on the book and i clearly see that the article focus on only one aspect of it. The "critical of form of life" interpretation, from the Jhaeghi's text, is obviously a good one but there is at least 3 other majors aspects of the book. 1. The alienation of thought 2. The civilisation disease 2. The possibility of a morality

For a summary try (yeah its almost impossible) lok to this text http://stl.recherche.univ-lille3.fr/seminaires/philosophie/macherey/macherey20042005/geneladornocadreprincipal.html (in french)

Perhaps I'll try to do it myself later, but for now I obviously havn't time at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuriandropov (talk • contribs) 23:30, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]