Where should I start with Adorno?

Minima Moralia no doubt

He has a double chin. I can't take him seriously if he is incapable of maintaining his own weight.

>>9154146
/thread

>>9154136
Minima Moralia is dope. Dialectic of Enlightenment is pretty cool to, especially the chapter on the culture industry and the analysis of The Odyssey. Haven't read anything else by him.

>>9154146
>>9154193
I don't really see this book discussed here. Do other anons like it?

>>9154146
>>9154193
>>9154293
any necessary prerequisites for minima moralia?

>>9154293

>Do other anons like it?

He goes into auto-pilot whenever the topic becomes expressly 'Marxist', but other than that, I appreciate his complexity and ability to maintain a consistently paradoxical mode of thought through several interwoven metaphors. A lot of the essays are more like puzzling vignettes, like Robert Walser's short stories at two levels of abstraction. Would reread again and again.

Read his works in alphabetical order.

easy:
- Philosophy of New Music (but don't, his philosophy of music isn't that important)
- The Authoritarian Personality (but don't, adorno pathologizing politics)
- Notes to Literature (only read it if you're reading in german, the translations are shit)
- Minima Moralia (start with this one)

hard:
- Negative Dialectics
- Dialectic of Enlightenment
- Aesthetic Theory

^ his 3 main works. Don't read DoE without a deep understanding of Hegel and philosophy in general, otherwise you'll turn into a comp lit critical drone.

>>9154136
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zm0BtTfkhgQ

WATCH THIS EVERYONE

>>9154301
Working understanding of Marxism

by adoring him

File: beady eyed JEw.png (276KB, 629x646px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 629x646px

>>9154824
ADRONO BTFO

File: Identifying Ressentiment.png (619KB, 500x775px) Image search: [Google]

619KB, 500x775px

>>9154136
The obsessive hatred, bordering on psychosis, against products — i.e. against man-made objects — seems to be the hallmark of the pseudo-intellectual today. Hatred of consumption, a problem which no sane, healthy person has ever had. As if food and clothes, as if eating or dressing were bad. Such is the pseudo-intellectual's craving to appear to be raging at something, that he will rage at life's basic necessitities if need be.

The "consumer society" should have been called the "slave society", since there's nothing wrong with consuming, it is indeed the basis, the prerequisite, of all growth. Marx was at least healthy in focusing on production; Baudrillard's obsession with consumption is neurotic. Why not reduce it to zero and die of thirst in a few days, you fucking nihilistic little prick? Better yet just stop breathing; oxygen too is something that we consume.

What is "capital"? It is simply another word for money, which is a medium that facilitates exchange. Capitalism, then, is merely a state of things in which individuals are able, and allowed, to enter into exchange. That's all it is. Capitalism = Exchange. And since it is impossible for any culture and civilization at all to exist without exchange (indeed exchange is the number one prerequisite for civilization, with language itself understood as a form of exchange, the exchange of feelings), we might as well say that Capitalism = Civilization. To be against capitalism, then, means to be against civilization — which is par for the course for the kind of subhuman dreck which perpetually champions this nauseating, decadent notion. Just take a good look at them and you'll see.

>>9155013
Where is this from? It's pretty bad.

>>9154301
Understand dialectics

>>9155028
http://orgyofthewill.net/

>>9155013
Hahaha that is fucked!

>>9155028
>>9155080
Great replies.

>>9155056

>ctrl + f + "subhuman": 233 results

>>9155091

It's fucking terrible m8. Not much else to say. I mean fuck, this has almost got to be satiric:

>Capitalism = Exchange. And since it is impossible for any culture and civilization at all to exist without exchange (indeed exchange is the number one prerequisite for civilization, with language itself understood as a form of exchange, the exchange of feelings), we might as well say that Capitalism = Civilization.

>>9155142
Equating capitalism with civilization isn't too far of a stretch. He's just trying to be civil, and although it certainly isn't completely true, it is more true than equating capitalism with the process of exchange... I mean fuck.

>>9155124
>It is not enough to merely understand that subhumans are reactive. Hatred of subhumans is subhuman; it too is reactive. One must go beyond that, and understand that, at the end of the day, it was we humans who created the subhumans; they did not exist before us. There were no subhumans in prehistoric times, for example. Neanderthals were human. Dogs may as well be human, for that matter, compared to subhumans. Dogs do not lie about and constantly demonize their obvious superiors. Dogs do not believe, let alone pretend to believe, like the subhumans, in equality. They don't preach that you will "go to hell" or "suffer bad karma" for doing the same things that every other lifeform since the beginning of the universe has been doing (i.e. killing and eating other lifeforms), ALL THE WHILE KILLING AND EATING OTHER LIFEFORMS. To this day not a single prehistoric homo sapiens has been shown to have been subhuman (i.e. to subscribe to the inverted value system and self-deceiving fraudulent behavior that began, in the Western tradition, with Judaism and subsequently spread to the entire globe in the form of Christianity and its secular offshoots: Marxism and liberalism).
>One must grasp the nature of the subhumans' inverted existence. The weak thinkers (/pol/tards) point their fingers at them: they have found the cause of Western degeneration! Never mind that the Western world is by no means degenerating, and is in fact obviously scaling new heights of power and accomplishment with every passing day. The /pol/tards themselves are a reaction to the reaction of subhumans, and that's why they hate them so much, and seem even more pathetic. And all of them are a reaction to me and to my ancestors, which is why, not only do I not hate anyone, but I can retain sufficient clarity of thought in the midst of this cosmic struggle to the point of realizing, and explaining, why all these poor wretches are so closely tied to me and to my life choices, as to forever owe me their entire existence...

>>9154136

Don't. Read actual philosophy.

>>9155142
>>9155167
Why is that bad? It's reducing capitalism to the essential idea of 'facilitating free exchange as much as possible, any restrictions being the bare minimum to discourage revolts and not serve moralistic-meddling'.

And exchange is civilisation.

>>9155013
>never read Marx, not even the Communist Manifesto: the post

Reading Dialectic of Enlightenment. Some of the most obscure shit ever but sometimes pretty interesting.

>>9155310
What makes you come to that conclusion?