In preparation for
theme three I read the texts assigned and answered the questions that were
assigned to this theme. I had a hard time understanding the actual meaning of
what Benjamin and Adorno and Horkheimer were trying to convey. After the
lecture and the seminar I have a very different view on the literature than
before. After having discussed the texts both in group and with the seminar
leader I have a much better understanding of the texts assigned.
One part of the text
that I had a particular hard time understanding was the concept of nominalism. However,
after the seminar I understood better that nominalism states that everything is
unique and objects are only similar in our conceptions because of the way we
classify and group them together. For example, we discussed that no two apples
are the same. They have properties that distinguish each one from the other but
because they have the same core attributes, we group them into the same
category and define them as the same thing. During the seminar we also
discussed that Adorno and Horkheimer believe that nominalism is a way for
fascism to have status quo. If you only know what is then you cannot know what
could be. If there weren’t any differences (e.g. upper and lower class) then
you wouldn’t be aware that there was a different way to live life and they argue
that this is a danger to society. However, when discussing these aspects we
also talked about how these concepts (the concept of class and what defines a
good society) are actually social constructs that only exist in our cognition.
In connection with
this, another aspect that I understood better after the seminar was the
connection between enlightenment and deception in terms of mass media. We
discussed how it forces repeating patterns of behavior. Adorno and Horkheimer
argued that movies only show a view of what the world looks like today, and not
what it could look like. By constantly repeating a certain view of people then people
are going to continue behaving in a certain way and repeating what they see in the
pictures. Adorno and Horkheimer mean that this is deceptive as movies claim
that society is a non-changing situation when they don’t show a view of what
reality could look like.
Your pre-reflections on theme 2 clearly show that you worked hard to get a good understanding of the texts! I especially liked your evaluation on how perception is historically determined and how you comprehend the term Nominalism.
ReplyDeleteYou have a very structured way of writing and I like also that you focus on the main parts of the seminar discussion you found particularly interesting. Since I was in another group, I enjoyed reading about the connection between enlightenment and mass media in the eyes of Adorno and Horkheimer. Well done!
I really enjoyed reading your reflection! It shows that you have put a lot of work into it. I agree with your aspect about the concept of nominalism. It is very interesting that nominalism actually upholds National Socialism. Furthermore, I enjoyed your part about mass media and enlightment. In addition to this, have you considered that due to zooming and cutting you will get a fragmented picture of the world looks like? Well done!
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your reflections and I enjoyed reading them. I would like to point out the opinion of Benjamin about mass media. It is interesting that Benjamin's argument is opposite to A&H argument. As you have mentioned, movies are a mirroring of the actual conditions of life, and also lead us to thing that this how life should be. Enlightenment supposed to be a free way of thinking but it is not. In contrast, Benjamin believes that superstructure is related to mass media and that media have revolutionary potentials. He argue that even though we cannot see the results of media now in our society, the results will come as time passes.
Hi Denise!
ReplyDeleteSince we was at the same seminar I really recognize myself in your text, which I also find entertaining and easy to understand. As well as you I got a new understanding of the concept of nominalism, and I think that it is good that we have the lectures and seminars so that we have a chance to understand the texts and keywords better. You also mentions how the concepts of class and what's good in a society and that it is in our cognition, I totally agree with that and I think that it is a interesting point to discuss more. Good job and thank you for interesting reading.
Hi Denise. Your reflections on theme 2 is clear and easy to follow. I enjoy reading your blogs and agree a lot with your words. It is true that some terms are quite hard to understand by oneself, so your share is very helpful to me. In particular for your discussion on the term Nominalism that everything is unique. Also, I like that you are making example to help understanding, such as Apple and Fascism. They help a lot for better understanding. Good job! Look forward to your future posts.
ReplyDeleteHi, your reflection is very good, you wrote how and what you discuss in the seminar, which is focusing on categories. We also did it, and I think those categories is hard to follow since they are still too general, and in the seminar when we discussed it, and we confused if everything can be included in these several categories. Anyhow, thank you for sharing, good job!
ReplyDelete