Post Theme 2

For preparation of this week’s seminar, I read both the texts by Benjamin and by Adorno and Horkheimer. In addition to this, I tried finding other sources who referenced these texts, or had their own ways of trying to explain their meaning. The reason for this was simply to try to get a broader understanding of the texts, and try to find other people’s interpretations of what they mean, in order to shape my own understanding. All of this preparation was in order to contribute during the seminar, in which me and two of my classmates had long discussions about all of the questions which we were expected to answer.

One of the longest conversations we had was regarding dialectic, and how it is separate from a normal debate. We thought it was quite clear how a regular debate is had in order to try to convince the opposing part on the fact that you are right – whereas a dialectic is about finding out the pure truth, by finding out what is not true. I contributed to this discussion by conversing about how dialectics are used in everyday life, and we encompass dialectic thinking of opposites every day, not in the form of trying to gain an true answer, but rather a way of discussing everyday.

Before the seminar, I had only thought of the question regarding how the world is perceived through our senses, and how it is naturally and historically determined, to only be from a perceivers point of view. During the seminar, there was an interesting discussion on how this not only rings true for the perceiver, but also from a production perspective. The seminar leader had used the example of art throughout history, and how it is differently produced throughout time. Eras such as the renaissance, romanticism or modern art are all perceived differently from a production perspective (which can clearly be seen by looking at art from the different eras), as well as from the perspective of who is looking at the art.  

Another question which was clarified to me during the seminar was that of Nominalism. I had a hard time understanding how the concept, in which you reject universals and abstract objects, was to be understood. However, during the seminar, we got the explanation by discussing Platos’ allegory of the cave.  I thought of nominalism in the sense of metaphysical issues, such as god – but I did nto understand that it can be much broader applied to just about anything. In Platos’ allegory of the cave, there is the issue that platonic realism exists outside of the physical world, and the fact that this can’t be proven. By using a nominalist perspective, you try to see the world in a different approach. Every book is unique, and universals cannot describe every single book – as that would generalize the physical object.  By rejecting that thought, you can try to enlighten by not believing myths and false truths, as there is no way to prove their concept – simply put, you reject them.

To conclude, the fact that these texts written a long time ago are still reflected in today’s society shows how philosophy and these theories are not bound by time – rather they are a mere reflection of the society and the human minds which form it. This week’s texts have helped me get a better understanding of how the substructure of a society which forms our everyday lives by producing a superstructure in which we live. But by trying to enlighten ourselves and seeing another resemblance of the truth – we too might “step away” from the society in order to gain a larger understanding.