lmao bro this is so embarrassing. look like i'm not a staunch defender of everything adorno ever did and certainly im not like hard-line supporter of all these specific guys and movements, but like.. really?

"aronowitz correctly perceived that the inclinations of the frankfurt school (and marxism more generally) towards "holism" and "dialectics" were existentially challenged by physics' radical focus on underlying root dynamics".

if you repeat it enough its true, surely. but also it just completely misunderstands the err of this era. the focus on "instrumental reason" was not dialectical enough, that was the good part you got right with your critique of holism. i guess i have to take that back now

also like, to be clear, i have no dog in the race of defending pomo as a movement, i really couldn't care less. there were undoubtedly a lot of quacks and maybe they had outsize influence. tbh im not deeply informed on the history of may 68 and all its subcurrents, so i dont care the litigate that.

i'm also sympathetic to the argument that the way a philosophy is used matters a lot and reflects upon the thought itself, and of course there's a reciprocal influence there. that isn't being spelled out but i just want to make it clear that i'm chill with that if used carefully.

at the same time though, and for that very reason, some distortions of thinkers and what your broad gloss of them are do matter, especially because you're building to a throughline and generating a historical account leading up to the present