The enlightenment period came as a response to a world in which life was romanticized and man was considered a special creature, god’s image on earth. At this time the church was strong and one of the reasons for this was that it possessed knowledge. Knowledge and answers to metaphysical questions. However these answers weren’t based on scientific research as we know it today, but rather through stories told by people a long time ago. Since these explanations didn’t have much scientific basis they could also be named legends or myths. The church was part (or leader) of a system which did control the culture and decide on what kind of art was to be produced. As mentioned by Adorno, but in a slightly different context during the nazi regime, if you don’t conform to the system you will fall behind and eventually fall out. The same thing could be said about the system of the church before the enlightenment era. It was therefore in the best interest for people to follow the church’s rules (at least in the short time). The church could also be considered a major influence on the superstructure as well as or maybe even more a maintainer of the substructure in a Marxist view on society. The substructure refers to the production and the people who are producing goods and the superstructure more abstract concepts like culture, art, norms, ideologies etc. So what the enlightenment actually was, was a period of debunking myths or basically anything which couldn’t be explained by science and mathematics. By doing this it also removed many obstacles and paved the way for a lot of scientific advances and breakthroughs. Power and knowledge was considered synonymous, and Adorno says that “enlightenment stands in the same relationship to things as a dictator to human beings, he knows them to the extent that he can manipulate them.”. Enlightenment is totalitarian in that it strives to regulate all things. There’s also a concern which both texts are bringing up, and that is the worry of the enlightenment being a tool for deception of the masses.
With the enlightment came a new idea of what should be considered knowledge. For a long time art had become mixed up with true knowledge i.e. things that can be broken down to numbers. Arts and myths weren’t banned but tolerated as long as they were used for entertainment or pleasure. Before both arts, myths served as a way to grasp and control nature, it also provided meaning which people were looking for.
Going back to mass deception and the super/sub-structures. The point is that the masses of the substructure is moving faster than the superstructure is changing. This means that there should be a great possibility for revolution. But as is mentioned in the texts, the masses are trapped within a system which they are constantly nurturing and strengthening. Revolution requires organization. Depending on the society this will be easier or harder. The system has ways of maintaining order of the masses. By for example policing or in a facist state, by threats. What Adorno mentions is that “as long as art was expensive, it kept the citizen within some bound.” Which means that the art that was accessible for the citizen was limited by the culture industry. However that did change, and it became cheaper to access and produce art. The freeing of the art is important for democracy and it’s also powerful ammunition for revolution.
The Aura is in art what purveys the time and place of an artwork. Auras do also exist in nature and is defined by a distance to and the perception of a natural object. It’s possible to perceive historical events through the art pieces’ auras.
Nominalism is a philosophical view which says that there exists no abstract objects or universals. Universals are characteristics which objects can share e.g. yellowness. By rejecting the existance of these, it’s also in extension rejecting the existance of a deity. There’s no way of proving that these universals and abstract objects do exist so it would be tempting to say that they don’t exist. But at the same time it’s not easy to prove that they don’t exist either which means that one can’t really reject their existance without resorting to mythology (at least by enlightenment standards).The Aura is in art what purveys the time and place of an artwork. Auras do also exist in nature and is defined by a distance to and the perception of a natural object. It’s possible to perceive historical events through the art pieces’ auras.
A method for trying to find the truth through discourse is called Dialectic and it’s basically a method of reasoning. An example of dialectic thinking would be “each thing is what it is only by becoming what it is not”.
Hola,
SvaraRaderaI was reluctant at first to read and write about your blog cause it was too long (after 9 comments, you know the feel...) but that was very interesting. Using religion as an example is always interesting.
I totally agree with you, that there is a simple correlation between power and knowledge and that the church abused that power over the civilisations as we knew them. They still have that effects on people cause roots doesn't leave easily but I think this is one of the superstructure of the actual society.
As you mentioned, scientists using science to prove knowledge, the one they obtain, therefore the illusion upon church's knowledge falls down.
And over time, church will lose his power, already started, and who knows ... in few years (more like hundred at least), won't have any power left over people.
On a point I shall disagree however is that you are saying that there is no way of proving that these universals and abstracts objects do exist and impossible to prove that they do not. But the burden of the proof falls on those who affirms.
Therefore, we can reject their affirmation. Affirmation without proof can be rejected without proof.
Very nice reflection thought keep up the good work.