The theme of the origin of the epistemology of multiple rationalities stems from the neo-Kantian and phenomenological debates in which various representatives of the Frankfurt School, in the broadest sense, participated. The neo-Kantians had a very strong influence on the early period of the Institute and the Research Group, due to their deep involvement in neo-Kantian studies at German universities in the interwar period. Adorno’s firs papers were written under supervising the neo-Kantian Hans Cornelius. Kant created a transcendental dialectic which has many features common with Negative dialectic of Adorno. For example, Kant associated not only with contradictions but also with the critique of illusion: “Above we have called dialectic in general a logic of illusion” (Kant 1998, 384) and Adorno presents his dialectic as a much larger and socially and politically oriented critique of the tragic illusions of his time. Kant invited not to mix the logic of illusion nor with probabilism, nor with empirical critics of appearances: “Still less may we take appearanced and illusion for one and the same” (ibid.) and Adorno distinguishes between artistic illusions, which create a new sense of the world, and appearances, which are reproduced by totalitarian ideologies, cultural industries and other systems of subjugation. Kant states that this illusion “cannot be avoided” and that it is not necessarily a pathology but a property of every mind. Therefore, a transcendental dialectic is needed as something that helps to find the criteria of justice, where errors are inevitable. Kant classifies the illusions of the pure mind by analysing transcendental ideas that claim to be universal and lead us to draw inadequate conclusions that go beyond the limits of experience, resulting in paralogisms and antinomies. Kant’s definition of dialectic as a critique of illusion follows Aristotle’s logic, which formalised considerations of fallacies and sophisms and demonstrated logical ways of detecting and refuting fallacies. Some sophisms were called paralogisms. Kant is not interested in all of them, but only in transcendental paralogisms that arise from a false foundation of reasoning. Analysis of antinomies also is sophisticated method of analysis in Kant’s transcendental dialectic. A transcendental antinomy consists of two opposing theories of the same imaginary phenomenon: The world has a beginning in time and a limit in space or is infinite in both time and space; every substance consists of simple parts, or everything is complex; everything is causally determined, or there is non-causal spontaneity in the world; everything in the world is necessary, or there is freedom without any reason.

Iconology and Critical Theory

章节
发表日期：

2025年

查看全文

Gintautas Mažeikis

摘要

The theme of the origin of the epistemology of multiple rationalities stems from the neo-Kantian and phenomenological debates in which various representatives of the Frankfurt School, in the broadest sense, participated. The neo-Kantians had a very strong influence on the early period of the Institute and the Research Group, due to their deep involvement in neo-Kantian studies at German universities in the interwar period. Adorno’s firs papers were written under supervising the neo-Kantian Hans Cornelius. Kant created a transcendental dialectic which has many features common with Negative dialectic of Adorno. For example, Kant associated not only with contradictions but also with the critique of illusion: “Above we have called dialectic in general a logic of illusion” (Kant 1998, 384) and Adorno presents his dialectic as a much larger and socially and politically oriented critique of the tragic illusions of his time. Kant invited not to mix the logic of illusion nor with probabilism, nor with empirical critics of appearances: “Still less may we take appearanced and illusion for one and the same” (ibid.) and Adorno distinguishes between artistic illusions, which create a new sense of the world, and appearances, which are reproduced by totalitarian ideologies, cultural industries and other systems of subjugation. Kant states that this illusion “cannot be avoided” and that it is not necessarily a pathology but a property of every mind. Therefore, a transcendental dialectic is needed as something that helps to find the criteria of justice, where errors are inevitable. Kant classifies the illusions of the pure mind by analysing transcendental ideas that claim to be universal and lead us to draw inadequate conclusions that go beyond the limits of experience, resulting in paralogisms and antinomies. Kant’s definition of dialectic as a critique of illusion follows Aristotle’s logic, which formalised considerations of fallacies and sophisms and demonstrated logical ways of detecting and refuting fallacies. Some sophisms were called paralogisms. Kant is not interested in all of them, but only in transcendental paralogisms that arise from a false foundation of reasoning. Analysis of antinomies also is sophisticated method of analysis in Kant’s transcendental dialectic. A transcendental antinomy consists of two opposing theories of the same imaginary phenomenon: The world has a beginning in time and a limit in space or is infinite in both time and space; every substance consists of simple parts, or everything is complex; everything is causally determined, or there is non-causal spontaneity in the world; everything in the world is necessary, or there is freedom without any reason.