Alt Text
Show parent replies
btw its been a min since i was involved w da lit here but i recall my take being that freyenhagen was correct about the narrow case of that conception of immanent critique but also that a much broader dialectical methodology could fairly claim immanence, so i don't think adorno contradicted himself
iirc the adornian academics that responded to F's work were frustrated by his disadherence to adorno's explicit statements about immanent critique but were way too formulaic about the whole thing. brings to mind geuss' interview take on genealogy as method
tl;dr immanent critique (if we understand 'immanent' and 'critique' properly) need not imply exclusive engagement with explicitly endorsed ideals of a political order. might be helpful to think in terms of "immanent critique" vs "internal criticism" and separate them