Marcuse and Adorno diverged on whether redemption is immanent in existing society

Evidence

The final aphorism in Adorno’s Minima Moralia read: The only philosophy which can be responsibly practiced in face of despair is the attempt to contemplate all things as they would present themselves from the standpoint of redemption. Knowledge has no light but that shed on the world by redemption . . . consummate negativity, once squarely faced, delineates the mirror-image of its opposite.' Was this not the same as what Marcuse was writing? The differences between them appeared in the sentences that followed in each case. In Marcuse's view, the elements of the new society were inherent within existing society and were preparing to transform it into a free society. For Adorno, however, perceiving the worldfrom the point of view of redemptionas being displaced and alienated, a perception anticipating the messianic light’, was on the one hand the simplest and most obvious thing of all, while on the other hand it was an utter impossibility. — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 2152

Categorization

• XREF: Starkly contrasts the materialist optimism of Marx (via Marcuse’s Reason and Revolution) with Adorno’s negative-dialectical refusal — a core split within the Frankfurt School. — connects to: Marcuse and Adorno diverged on whether history harbors a guaranteed positive essence — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School: Its History,…, 2153

Broader Connections

• Marcuse and Adorno diverged on whether history harbors a guaranteed positive essence #expands (0.85) — Rolf Wiggershaus, The Frankfurt School, 2153