556 Notes to pp. 283–286
to understand the dual nature of ends–means rationality at all. See Ritsert,
Die Rationalität Adornos, p. 7ff.
54 Adorno and Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, p. 4.
55 Ibid., p. 9.
56 Ibid., p. 8.
57 Ibid., p. 13 (translation amended). For the importance of Dialectic of
Enlightenment as a contribution to the critique of rationality, see Anke
Thyen, Negative Dialektik und Erfahrung: Rationalität des Nichtidentischen
bei Adorno, p. 65ff.; Albrecht Wellmer, Zur Dialektik von Moderne und
Postmoderne; Herbert Schnädelbach, ‘Die Aktualität der “Dialektik der
Aufklärung”’, p. 231ff. For a critique of the implications of Dialectic of
Enlightenment for the philosophy of history, see Axel Honneth, Kritik
der Macht, p. 110ff.; Jürgen Habermas, Der philosophische Diskurs der
Moderne, p. 130ff.; Hans-Klaus Keul, Kritik der emanzipatorischen
Vernunft, p. 181ff.
58 Adorno and Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, p. 28.
59 Ibid., p. 155.
60 Adorno’s posthumous papers contain an older version of the chapter on
The Odyssey, probably written early in 1943. This version expresses ideas
that Adorno later published independently (‘On Epic Naiveté’, Notes to
Literature, vol. 1, p. 24ff.). I owe this reference to Rolf Tiedemann, who
again makes it clear that Adorno was responsible for this section of the
book. See Frankfurter Adorno Blätter, V, 1998, p. 37ff.
61 Adorno and Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, p. 21.
62 Doris Kolesch maintains that ‘Adorno’s and Horkheimer’s interpretation
of the Siren episode relies on the customary topos of woman as the mirror
of the masculine self’ (Doris Kolesch, ‘Sich schwach zeigen dürfen, ohne
Stärke zu provozieren: Liebe und die Beziehung der Geschlechter’,
p. 193ff.).
63 Adorno and Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, p. 33f. (translation
slightly modified).
64 Ibid., p. 95.
65 Ibid., p. 123.
66 Ibid., p. 148.
67 Ibid., p. 134.
68 Ibid., p. 121.
69 See Dan Diner, ‘Aporie der Vernunft: Horkheimers Überlegungen zu
Antisemitismus und Massenvernichtung’, p. 30ff.; Moishe Postone,
‘Nationalismus und Antisemitismus: Ein theoretischer Versuch’, p. 242.
70 Adorno and Horkheimer, Dialectic of Enlightenment, p. 199.
71 Ibid., p. 171.
72 Ibid., p. 168.
73 Ibid., p. 179.
74 Ibid., p. 200.
75 In the Dialectic of Enlightenment, Adorno and Horkheimer preferred
the concept of fascism to that of National Socialism. One reason for
this was that they did not see anti-Semitism as a national phenomenon.
‘Totalitarian anti-Semitism is by no means a specifically German phenom-
enon. Attempts to deduce it from such a dubious entity as national
character, the pathetic dregs of what used to be the spirit of the nation,