Talk:Negative Dialectics

Is this Dennis Redmond reference just an advertisement? I don't remove it, because the current translation is, in fact, opaque. . Also, I'm not a philosopher. However, a secondary source confirming this claim could help. Josh a brewer (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

StudentInEpistemology (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC) New proposal to complete the wiki page, lightening (in different senses) quotes (if too many are left, it might perhaps be possible to just point them as footnotes, but perhaps keep the last one which might at best summarize the ideas)

His purpose is to overcome the formal logical limits of previous definition of dialectics by putting into light that new knowledge arises less from a Hegelian unification of opposite categories as defined following Aristotelian logic than by the revelation of the limits of knowledge.

We are blaming the method for the fault of the matter when we object to dialectics on the ground (repeated from Hegel’s Aristotelian critics on) that whatever happens to come into the dialectical mill will be reduced to the merely logical form of contradiction, and that (an argument still advanced by Croce) the full diversity of the noncontradictory, of that which is simply differentiated, will be ignored.

— Theodor W. Adorno, Negative Dialectics,Preface

Such revelation of the limits of knowledge reaches out to its experienced object ever escaping in its wholeness the simplifying categories of purely theoretical thinking.

[(The name of) dialectics] indicates the untruth of identity, the fact that the concept does not exhaust the thing conceived.

— Theodor W. Adorno, Negative Dialectics,Preface

Thereby he sets into light the possibly essentially epistemological nature of philosophy and its essential link to reality.

Having broken its pledge to be as one with reality or at the point of realization, philosophy is obliged ruthlessly to criticize itself.

— Theodor W. Adorno, Negative Dialectics,Preface

His reflection moves a step higher by applying the concept of dialectics not only to exterior objects of knowledge, but to the process of thought itself.

The plain contradictoriness of this challenge is that of philosophy itself, which is thereby qualified as dialectics before getting entangled in its individual contradictions. The work of philosophical self-reflection consists in unraveling that paradox.

— Theodor W. Adorno, Negative Dialectics,Preface

To summarize

[...] this Negative Dialectics in which all esthetic topics are shunned might be called an “anti-system.” It attempts by means of logical consistency to substitute for the unity principle, and for the paramountcy of the supraordinated concept, the idea of what would be outside the sway of such unity. To use the strength of the subject to break through the fallacy of constitutive subjectivity—this is what the author felt to be his task [...]. Stringently to transcend the official separation of pure philosophy and the substantive or formally scientific realm was one of his determining motives

— Theodor W. Adorno, Negative Dialectics,Preface

StudentInEpistemology (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

In this version of the article, you have given the quotations from Negative Dialectics far too much prominence. In your version of the article, the reader is presented with a paragraph summarizing the work, then a large and prominently displayed quotation, then another paragraph of summary, then another large and prominently displayed quotation. While some use of quotations can be helpful, every reasonable step that can be taken to minimize it should be taken. Quotations should be kept as short as possible and they should never stand out from the rest of the text, as they do in your version. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

StudentInEpistemology : Thank you for your clarifications, FreeKnowledgeCreator (my apologies !) - and for accepting my latest proposal ; referring to one of your revision comments : otherwise than concerning the form of quotations how do you think the summary might be acceptably further improved ? (should it be further developed or integrate ideas from other language versions ? or clarified ? thank you for your clarifications :) kind regards StudentInEpistemology (talk) 10:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)