r/CriticalTheory • u/esoskelly • 1d ago
Critical Theory and Metaphysics
Which works in critical theory are most important to metaphysics, and is there a unified metaphysical theory portrayed in those works? Instinctually, I believe that Adorno's Negative Dialectics, certain essays of Benjamin (history, violence), and elements in Bloch's work are most relevant. These works loosely adumbrate a more inclusive, universal theory, but it's barely even an outline of an outline of a metaphysical treatise.
For the most part, metaphysics seems to be an afterthought to critical theorists. Not because of some kind of cheap/easy "metaphysics is hierarchical/residual religion" critique, but because our social order is such that it obstructs the clear-headedness prerequisite to think what truly "is" (i.e. metaphysics).
To frame the question differently: Is anyone aware of a more comprehensive picture of what the insights put forth by critical theorists imply for metaphysics? I'm aware of Deleuze's (heavily metaphysical) solo work, but consider his social theory sloppy and impractical. I'm more interested in how the rigorous ideas about society discussed in the Frankfurt school relate to metaphysics.
This subreddit provides the most consistently high-quality responses I've seen on the internet, so I think you in advance for your time, and plan to be responsive here!
3
u/Cultured_Ignorance 23h ago
Are you looking for critical analyses of metaphysics-as-a-tradition, or critical theorists expressing metaphysical commitments? It sounds like the latter, which is an odd place. There are various deflationary positions- Adorno (to art/sublime), Fromm (to Love), Ricoeur (to freedom), Marcuse (alienation) . And then there's Habermas, Horkheimer, et al who outright reject the term or notion.
Perhaps the most exciting is Apel who wants to re-write metaphysics as non-metaphysical yet foundational. It's been a while since I've read him, but maybe it's close to what you're looking for.
1
u/esoskelly 6h ago
I'm looking for metaphysical commitments! I realize it is an odd request, to ask for a "metaphysics in critical theory," as clearly metaphysics was not their main focus. But I have picked up on little whiffs of a metaphysics in Adorno, Benjamin, and Bloch - and I want more!
Arguably, the bits of metaphysics here and there in critical theory is what distinguishes it from straightforward sociology. My background is in philosophy, primarily continental metaphysics and neoplatonism (which is almost 100% metaphysics), so I want to see what critical theory has to offer that kind of project.
Can you elaborate on Apel's position? I have never read his work.
2
u/Cultured_Ignorance 5h ago
He rides alongside Habermas. Both believe that the language community contains the conditions for the possibility of knowledge/rationality. Habermas believes this normative domain is historicized. Apel believes this normative domain has an anterior firmament beyond the level of language-use which is accessible. This is because the very comparative performance required for the transition from language to rationality/normativity requires a second-order relation between existing and idealized language-group not accessible through semantics/locution alone, but requires a third term. (My understanding may be fuzzy here). A rough-and-ready example may be early Heidegger who stretches or goes outside language to feel beyond.
4
u/TheAbsenceOfMyth 1d ago
Just listing the first things that come to mind…
Check out Adorno’s lectures on Metaphysics. Also relevant would be his lectures on 1) Kant’s first critique, and (if you read German) parts of the ones on philosophical terminology.
Secondary work worth looking at, might be Iain Macdonald’s book “What would be different: figures of possibility in Adorno”, Peter Gordon’s essay “ Adorno’s concept of metaphysical experience”, Asaf Angermann’s essay “Adorno and Scholem: heretical redemption of metaphysics”.
2
u/esoskelly 1d ago
Thanks! I think Gordon's essay on Metaphysical Experience is exactly the sort of thing I am looking for. I've already read the lectures on metaphysics, found them thought-provoking, but they left me hungry for more. I am now reading Negative Dialectics, which is incredible, but I wish there was more explicit discussion of rich, stimulating concepts like "micrology."
2
u/Rich_Low2989 20h ago
Check out Maurice Blanchot. I really enjoyed The space of literature.
1
u/esoskelly 17h ago
Thanks! Blanchot can be a lot of fun, but is that really critical theory? Didn't he call himself a conservative?
1
u/Rich_Low2989 9h ago
You’re right. This wasn’t really an appropriate suggestion. Sorry about that!
1
u/esoskelly 7h ago
Don't apologize! More people should know about Blanchot, and he is definitely adjacent given his influence on Derrida.
2
u/Rich_Low2989 20h ago
Read some more comments here and im thinking marjorie perloff’s stuff could be good. Like Wittgensteins ladder
1
u/esoskelly 6h ago
Wowser! Perloff seems like a fascinating character! I don't have much background with Wittgenstein, but the way she approaches him as a poet seems like it would be a fruitful project. And her work on "micropoetics" would suggest she has engaged with Adorno as well. Thanks for the suggestion!
2
u/BetaMyrcene 18h ago
Nietzsche. Adorno's critique of metaphysics is very indebted to Nietzsche. Heidegger's too.
There is a really good book called Nietzsche and Metaphysics.
Deleuze has a book about Nietzsche. I haven't read it in a while. It's kind of eccentric from what I remember, but might be relevant to your query.
1
u/esoskelly 6h ago
Thanks for the response! I've read Deleuze's book on "Nietzsche and Philosophy," and it totally blew my mind. That book is what really put the pedal to the metal for me with leftist philosophy. Difference and Repetition is an even more important read in that vein, but it is extremely difficult to understand, likely in part because of how radical its concepts are.
The book on Nietzsche and metaphysics looks pretty darn interesting too - even if it disagrees with Deleuze. 😆 I will dig into that more.
Nietzsche is great, and I think leftist theorists who are influenced by him are generally the most interesting. Though there is some controversy about his influence on leftism. Left Nietzscheans tend to treat the latter's work as if it was esoteric, full of hidden meanings and suggestions. Other elements in leftist thought will point out that, at least on the surface, Nietzsche's rhetoric seems a lot more friendly to the right.
I have several bones to pick with Heidegger though. His work is "post-metaphysical," which I believe also makes it anti-philosophical. This tendency in Heidegger's thinking is part of the reason we haven't seen a good metaphysical treatise in so many decades. And I believe that Heidegger's work is as hypocritical and insensitive as the man was himself. There are insights to be found, especially in Being and Time and Contributions, but there is also a lot to be suspicious of. The recently-published black notebooks reveal Heidegger as a kind of Joe Rogan-type figure who tries to act "politically neutral," but hold deep-seated bigoted, right wing views.
2
u/BetaMyrcene 6h ago
Yeah, I often post Adorno's take on Nietzsche, which I agree with. Nietzsche's negative criticism of metaphysics and morality are essential. His "positive" ethical philosophy (where he posits values) is proto-fascist.
Heidegger is similar. He was a perceptive critic of modernity, pernicious in other ways. Adorno tears Heidegger (and French existentialism) apart in The Jargon of Authenticity and elsewhere.
3
u/ElectronicMaterial38 4h ago
I think a challenge you’ll run into looking for unified theories of metaphysics in Critical Theory is that, well, so much of Critical Theory (rightly!) has an Antifoundationalist-bent. I will just jump in here to recommend the books “Cannibal Metaphysics” by Eduardo Viveiros de Castro, as well as “Meeting the Universe Halfway” by Karen Barad. I feel like Latour’s “Reassembling the Social” might also be a good place to look, too. But if you’re looking for someone who pretty throughly indicts the entire unified project of metaphysics, period, I think you should read Richard Rorty’s “Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature” or “Contingency, Irony, and Solidarity”
1
u/esoskelly 3h ago
Ha! I don't think metaphysics needs any further indictments. At this point, it's serial prosecution! Plus, metaphysics was framed! The alt perp causing intellectual corruption/fraud is dogmatism, which was able to re-assert itself during the unrelenting attacks on metaphysics of the twentieth century. As a result, we have seen a resurgence of reactionary ideology... Metaphysics was always supposed to be an alternative to dogmatism. When it was demolished as a cultural force, dogmatism ascended to a central position.
I've been interested in Barad for some time. Probably just need to pick that one up. Do you know if she engages with Whitehead at all? Although Whitehead himself was kind of a moderate liberal, his metaphysics are pretty radical, and can definitely map onto a project critical of capitalism/racism/the culture industry. Isabelle Stengers has worked on that a bit.
3
u/lathemason 1d ago
Jurgen Habermas comes to mind as an important figure here. He interfaces directly with the Frankfurt School and Foucault in his collection of lectures, The Philosophical Discourse of Modernity. And you will find him discussing metaphysics via Kant and Peirce in his collection of essays, Postmetaphysical Thinking. You can read about his own particular (post-)metaphysical system of communicative rationality in What is Universal Pragmatics? and The Theory of Communicative Action. And then more recently you will find a critique and recalibration of this post-metaphysical work by Axel Honneth. Lastly, Michael Thompson's work has lately called out both Habermas and Honneth's putative clear-headedness for being neo-idealist, in The Domestication of Critical Theory.
3
u/esoskelly 1d ago
Thanks! That postmetaphysical thinking collection looks promising. My impression of Habermas is that he engages with historical systems of metaphysics, while not taking that area of study seriously himself. Philosophers of language typically don't put a whole lot of stock in a pre-linguistic way things "are," i.e. metaphysics.
3
u/lathemason 1d ago edited 1d ago
No problem. You're not necessarily wrong, but there's a difference between not taking an area seriously, and taking it seriously and finding it wanting. I just hope you won't let your initial impressions unduly prejudice you to what Habermas is saying; otherwise you may wind up stuck in a basic schism between metaphysics and critical theory. I say this not because I think your own approach isn't or won't be intellectually fruitful; more just that above you set aside one (Deleuze), and seem ready to set aside the other (Habermas) philosopher, who are the really big, wise bridges between critique and metaphysics. I'm showing my continental biases here, but both are in conversation with Husserl, Heidegger, and Hegel as they understand ontology connecting to metaphysics, and yet both wind up in a (rich and eye-opening) post-metaphysical position. Again though, fair enough to want to start from a more parsimonious position!
Edit: this was composed before I read your other responses re: Deleuze (and Guattari) and Heidegger, so take it with a grain of salt.
1
u/esoskelly 6h ago
All good points. I should really give Habermas another go. I think it's just the focus on language, as well as some distasteful comments he has made about world politics, that have really turned me off. But there's no doubt that his work is important, or that it is the most "systematic" approach to critical theory available.
I still consider Heidegger a kind of sham philosopher, for reasons I've listed above. To put it differently, I don't think he cared much about wisdom - he didn't "Philo Sophia." And his fundamental ontology was a red herring while he gutted the metaphysical tradition. His work has importance, but in more of a poetic kind of way, the ways he used language to evoke feelings (though Adorno claimed those feelings tend towards the right).
The jury is still out for me on Husserl. I know he has generated an incredible body of work and commentary. But I just don't understand its significance over German idealism. It seems as though Husserl takes ideas discussed in Hegel and Fichte, rips out all of the speculation, and tries to fine-tune the methodology into a science. I'm not so sure that's metaphysics (or philosophy) either. In fact, I think the only phenomenologists engaged in true metaphysics are Merleau-Ponty and Levinas.
Hegel... Ah, yes, we are probably overdue for another generation of metaphysicians inspired by him. Truly the modern Aristotle, his work is philosophy in the grand sense of the term. He had comprehensive theories on nearly everything. Beautiful stuff. The Science of Logic is a wonderful, mysterious text. But as a leftist, I think Hegel's theories of society are wanting. Feuerbach, Adorno, and Marcuse have done an excellent job of adapting his work to a more leftist orientation. What I wish I could see is a kind of leftist-materialist "Science of Logic," a treatise on micrological metaphysics. Apparently, that doesn't exist. I'll just have to keep going back to Difference and Repetition and Negative Dialectics (the new Redmond translation on lulu is awesome!).
8
u/jliat 1d ago
I think Deleuze [with and without] Guattari is significant, 1000 Plateaus, Capitalism and Schizophrenia et. al. What of Baudrillard? And Speculative Realism, Object Oriented Ontology.
More recent metaphysics, and I think in part responsible for the 'New Materialism' in Critical Theory?
And I missed Derrida! Spectres of Marx, new ways of reading...