This essay first contextualizes Adorno's essays in literary criticism in relation to his historico‐philosophical account of modern rationalization and late capitalism, his dialectical theory of culture, and his return to postwar Germany. It then presents the neo‐Marxist and formalist principles that inform his literary criticism, emphasizing the artwork's critical relationship to society, on the one hand, and the theory of aesthetic experience undergone by the artwork's recipient on the other. These principles are exemplified in selective readings of Adorno's essays on (...) Heinrich Heine and Friedrich Hölderlin. The essay concludes by polemically juxtaposing Adorno's practice of literary criticism with that of neo‐Aristotelian “ethical criticism.”. (shrink)

_Philosophy and Argument_ presents systematic analysis of the role of argumentation in philosophy.

The purpose of this note is to present a set of rules for the syllogism which not only is equivalent with the set ordinarily used, but also is the dual of the latter. It must be emphasized, however, that the discussion of both of these sets presupposes the hypothetical interpretation of universal propositions, and would not hold true of the existential interpretation of such propositions. A universal proposition is interpreted hypothetically, rather than existentially, when it is not assumed that the (...) class denoted by its subject must have members. Thus the hypothetical interpretation of “All unicorns are mammals” would be just “If anything is a unicorn, then it is a mammal—but it is not necessarily true that unicorns exist.” One important consequence of the distinction between these two modes of interpretation is that rule 3, below, is true for the hypothetical interpretation, but not for the existential. (shrink)

‘It is hard to become a truly good man': so Plato's Protagoras purports to understand the first line , and modern interpreters of the poem have followed him without exception.

An analysis of effectiveness of some of hume's arguments in a framework developed by the author. The author states his position that arguments attacking positions attempt to show that, Given the assumptions of a position, Certain consequences are incompatible with it--A valid species of "argumentum ad hominem". Although this species does not work for constructive philosophical "proofs," it will work inversely in arguments (defending such proofs) which cite possible objections. These charge "petitio": the objection assumes what the position denies or (...) "vice versa". Eight arguments are judged as "ad hominem" or as charging "petitio" and as effective or ineffective in either case. The analyses elaborate the author's position, And the mode of analysis is suggested as an adjunct to considering a philosopher's conclusions. (shrink)