23
FROM HEGEL TO ADORNO. ON THE PHILOSOPHICAL
UNDERSTANDING OF ART
An onio Gu ié ez Pozo
l. The Philosophical Rele ance o A
In his piece o wo k we seek o p esen Ado no’s aes he ic heo y like an
app op ia e p oposal o speci y he na u e and he cu en philosophical s a us o aes he ics,
beyond he aes he ic app oaches o Hegel and o - ecognizing he imp op ie y o he use o
he e m ‘aes he ics’- Heidegge , al hough in ac ecognizing ha Ado no’s aes he ic
concep ion is p ecisely beginning o ake de ini e shape in he deba e wi h hem, especially
wi h he Hegelian posi ion. Ne e heless, Ado no’s aes he ic heo y joins in p inciple wi h
he undamen al hesis o Hegel and o Heidegge in he sense o a i ming he
philosophical/epis emological and on ological ele ance o a , opposi e o he o he
pe spec i e ha has la gely con igu ed he mode n unde s anding o he aes he ics, he one
ha s a ing om Kan and ha passing o Kie kegaa d, culmina es in he Posi i ism. The
compa men aliza ion o Kan abou knowledge inally g an ed he igh s o he knowledge
and he u h o he science exclusi ely, a i ming ha he aes he ic judgemen - he a –
does no con ibu e any knowledge abou hei objec s
1
. A would a he ha e o do wi h
he eeling o li e. In any case, e ic ing i o he knowledge, Kan inaugu a ed he
unde s anding o a like game, g a ui ous and disin e es ed ac i i y, unde s anding ha
culmina ed in he posi i ism o Spence and Taine, whe e a –al eady cons i u ed in me e
i al onic, i a ional ma e le o he wild a bi a iness o he an asy- becomes pu e
game, no hing se ious, seconda y ac i i y opposi e o science, ha is con igu ed as he only
uly se ious ac i i y o ha ing in p ope y he igh s o he knowledge. Fo his eason i
is no s ange ha he mode n hough has mainly pu o bed he philosophy on he side o
he science (Desca es, Kan o Husse l), no ha when he inadequacy o he
scien i ic/ a ional hough has been ecognized philosophy had come close o eligion
(Kie kegaa d) han o a
2
.
Fed o, Re is a de es é ica y eo ía de las a es. Núme o 1, ma zo 2004. ISSN 1697 - 8072
24
Hegel and Heidegge -sa ing he eno mous di e ences be ween one and o he -
eac ed agains his posi i is unde s anding o a . Hegel a i ms ha a is wo hy o
scien i ic/philosophical ea men and, i i is so, i is due o ha is no nei he simple i al
onic, no an a bi a y game wi hou ules
3
; he a is no he ield o i a ionali y bu a he ,
oge he wi h eligion and philosophy, hey a e “ways o exp essing and o making
conscious he di ine hing, he mos uni e sal u h in he human spi i ”
4
. They a e
mani es a ions o he spi i , ha is o say, ways o making conscious i s sup eme in e es s,
and each one o hem makes i acco ding o hei pa icula na u e
5
. In sho , a ep esen s
o Hegel he “sensi i e mani es a ion o he Idea (sinnliche Scheinen de Idee)”
6
. Ce ainly
Hegel, in con as o Kan , when making o a an exp ession o he spi i , an spi i whose
essence is he hough , he linked i o he knowledge and he u h, so ha he pe cei ed and
unde lined he philosophical ele ance o aes he ics. And Heidegge , on he o he hand,
concei ed ha he essence o a is his: “The u h o beings se ing i sel o wo k (sich-ins-
We k-Se zen de Wah hei des Seienden)”, “ he becoming and he happening o u h”, ha
is o say, o he being
7
. De ini ely Hegel and Heidegge ea i m he se iousness o a , i s
epis emological and on ological each. Ado no also sus ains -especially wi h Hegel- ha
a , a om being he place o he i a ionali y, i is a he a “complexion o he u h
(Komplexion de Wah hei )”
8
, and only o ha eason he conside s possible -and he
ca ies ou acco ding o he same i le o his wo k- an ‘aes he ic heo y’, a ‘ heo y’
( a ional) on he aes he ic hing, wha i would e iden ly be impossible i a we e an
i a ional ield. The a hinks, as Ado no unde lines, al hough –in ac - i hinks/judges
“wi hou wo ds (wo los)”; i s hough , i s logic is nei he concep ual no judica i e
9
. So
ha a is no me e i al o emo ional s imulan , i no only makes us o laugh o o c y,
acco ding o he jou nalis ic-posi i is opic ha unde s ands a om he poin o iew o
he emo ions: abo e all, a makes us hink. Now hen, o his he esemblance o he
Ado no´s aes he ics is limi ed wi h hose o Hegel and Heidegge . S a ing om he e, i is
o see he peculia i y o he Ado nian unde s anding o aes he ics opposi e o hose ha
Hegel and Heidegge expose. Tha peculia i y is beginning o ake shape in he ela ionship
be ween a and philosophy, a ela ionship ha , in de ini e, is he one ha unde lies o all
uly philosophical unde s anding o aes he ics. The s a us and he na u e o aes he ics a e
in ac elucida ed o he edge o he ela ionship be ween a and philosophy. Be i said
25
o he wise: all aes he ics con ains like an essen ial ea u e a ce ain way o unde s and he
ela ionship a -philosophy, and om now i comes o ha i is he i s hing ha we
should p o ile when we come close o he aes he ics o any au ho . I ep esen s he key
ha opens us he aes he ic building.
Hegel and Heidegge sa e a , hey legi ima e i s se iousness, hey unde line i s
epis emological and on ological compe ence. Bu hei p oposals ou line some
incon eniences, a ound which he Ado no´s aes he ic heo y is d awn. Le us conside he
Hegelian aes he ic p og am especially. Hegel es eems he a as much as less game and
i al onic, and he mo e knowledge and se ious ac i i y he belie es ha i is, pa adoxically
he conside s i mo e inessen ial opposi e o he philosophy, up o he poin o inally
dissol e i in o philosophy, and o ans o m i in o “a pas (ein Ve gangenes)”
10
–an
ope a ion ha has been la e denomina ed ‘dea h o a ’. Bu his pa adox s ops being and
becomes some hing o he mos na u al hing i we bea in mind ha Hegel, a om
de ending he peculia i y o he a is ic knowledge in con as o he philosophical one, he
measu es a om he pa e n o he philosophy al eady con igu ed in model and goal o
a . Hegel has so much pu o bed a on he side o he philosophical knowledge –
concep ual-, and he has de ended so li le i s speci ici y ha he ou come could no be
ano he han he o e coming o a h ough philosophy, o he in ui ion h ough concep .
Ce ainly, when he pu pose is o mani es ideas, ha is o say, o exp ess he spi i , ha he
spi i akes sel -conscience -and his is he key poin , he elemen ha as we will see
Ado no will in ac pu in ques ion s a ing om Hegel himsel -, when his is he ac , a -
ha will uly ep esen ano he hing - is in disad an age ega ding he philosophical
concep , and his is so because he o m o a is ic exp ession is sensi i e and no all
spi i ual con en can be ‘sensi ised’, so ha he sensi i e cha ac e o a o ces i o be
limi ed o mani es a ce ain s adium o he u h, o he sel -conscience o he spi i . Wha
a does –a mani es a ion o he spi i , an exp ession o ideas- he philosophy -be e , mo e
app op ia ely- does oo, he concep . Apa om ha sensi i e unde s anding o he u h,
Hegel a i ms he exis ence o a deepe unde s anding o he u h, he one o he e lexi e
hough , he philosophical one, wi hou any ela ionship al eady wi h he sensi i e and ha
you can no exp ess i sensibly in an app op ia e way
11
. Then, he a o Hegel can no
longe be he “sup eme and absolu e o m o exp ession o he spi i ”, “ he sup eme o m in
26
ha he u h becomes exis en ”, he sel -conscience o he spi i
12
. A is inally o e come
h ough hough and e lec ion. A , hen, u ns o be some hing supe luous, unnecessa y,
being o e come by philosophy. A , acco ding o Hegel, dies o supe lui y
13
. F om he
momen philosophical ha Hegel concei ed he wo k o a mo e as symbol o an idea i
was dic a ed i s sen ence o dea h. In de ini i e, Hegel sa es he epis emological ele ance
o a ‘philosophising’ abou i , ha is o say, ans o ming i in o philosophy, in imi a ion
o philosophical knowledge. The eco e y o he epis emological alue o a p ac iced by
Hegel ends up in he mos na u al way in he s a emen ha he aes he ics, he science o
a , is wo h mo e han he own a . The Hegelian au hen ica ion o he se iousness o a
h ough philosophy ends up cos ing o a i s own li e. The case o Hegel eaches o
Ado no – he eaches him o a mode nized aes he ics- ha he sal a ion o a can no be
made wi hou he own a , ha is o say, he sal a ion has o come om he s a emen o he
peculia i y o i s non-discu si e knowledge and i can no be impo ed om philosophy.
The opposi e o Hegel we ind in Heidegge . I in Hegel he philosophy inally
subs i u ed a o e coming i , in Heidegge i is a which -using a e m no comple ely
app op ia e- ‘o e comes’ he philosophy. In he Heidegge ian hough , philosophy inishes
cons i u ing on he pa e n o a . A e he c isis o eason and o he scien i ic/ a ional
cul u e, in sum, a e he c isis o he me aphysical/humanis cul u e, philosophy does no
ind ano he possible way o su i al -acco ding o Heidegge - bu o imi a e a , al eady
ans o med in o essen ial model o he philosophy
14
. The a ional o concep ual
knowledge o philosophy is abandoned by he poe ic knowledge o a p e iously
dehumanised and concei ed as he being’s wo d. Philosophy, concep ualizing hough , in
opinion o Heidegge , is he “enemy o hinking”
15
, o he poe ic hinking o a s ill hidden
bu ha i will inish supplan ing he objec i ying hough o he concep . In las e m his
is he eason o he Heidegge ian sen ence o aes he ics, since his consis s on he - om he
poin o iew o Heidegge - impossible desi e o hinking a concep ually, a desi e ha
ep esen s one mo e o m in he humanis /me aphysical way o him. Aes he ics is he
humanis /me aphysical way o ea ing he phenomenon o a , ha is o say, a
humaniza ion o a p ope on ological phenomenon as a , ha i is a poem w i en by he
being; and he aes he ics o Hegel is i s las and mo e accomplished exponen
16
. Tha is he
way how Heidegge g an s on ological and epis emological ele ance -used his las e m
27
wi h many ese a ions- o a , dehumanising i , sepa a ing i -be e : an agonizing i - o
philosophy unde s ood as discu si e knowledge. Howe e , Ado no sus ains in a ou o he
main enance o he sepa a ion o sphe es, ha a is no -nei he i can be, no i should be-
a “model o philosophy (philosophisches Maβ)”
17
. A philosophy ha imi a es he a –he
adds – i elimina es i sel because philosophy is concep ual, he concep is i s o gan
18
.
Philosophy can no su i e ou side o he ci cles o he concep , i s na u al habi a . The
case o Heidegge eaches o Ado no and in gene al o a con empo a y aes he ics ha i is
no enough o a i m he peculia i y o he a is ic knowledge in con as o he concep ual
one, wha Heidegge does wi hou doub , bu a he i is also necessa y o a oid ha he
s a emen akes wi h i sel he supp ession o he discu si e knowledge o philosophy.
Howe e , on pu pose o he in e p e a ion ha Ado no does o Heidegge i is
necessa y o hink a ionally abou he doub o i ha supposed elimina ion o he
philosophy ha Heidegge would p ac ice when o cing i o imi a e he a , would no
a he espond o he p ojec o achie ing a new philosophy, a ‘poe ic’ philosophy ha
would no eally be moun ed on he annihila ion o he a ional hinking –a hesis o base o
Ado no-, bu a he on i s eplacemen o oo ing o m in i s o iginal womb, he logos
mi opoié ico. Only he pa e n o a ionali y ‘mode n’ and he philosophy and he echnique
ha accompany i , ha ha e o go en hei poié ico o igin, ha is o say, ha hey ha e
o go en ha hey a e unc ions o he ale héia, o he e ealing o he u h/being, hey a e
only he enemies o hinking. Then i is no o supp ess hem, bu o e u ning hem o hei
o iginal sou ce. The Heidegge ian p oposal would suppose he supp ession o he di ision
be ween a and philosophy, and i s esul would be he poe ic hinking, a hinking whe e
eason and poe y would each a peace ul coexis ence, and whe e he oman ic ideal o he
in ellec ual in ui ion would ake body again. This in e p e a ion o Heidegge ne e heless
would collide again head-on wi h he posi ion o Ado no, o whom he sepa a ion be ween
a and philosophy -some hing i e e ible- bases on he same s uc u e o he conscience,
di ided in wo di e en and i educible dimensions: a mime ic/exp essi e, ‘a is ic’ one,
and ano he concep ual one, ‘philosophical’. F om he e ha Ado no unde a es in
p inciple any philosophical p ojec ha is sus ained abou he hope o inding in he
conscience hidden sou ces ha libe a e us o he objec i ying o concep ualizing hinking
which is p e ailing up o now, and ha hey open he possibili y o a new and di e en

28
hinking o us
19
. De ini i ely, -and always om he pe spec i e p oposed by Ado no-,
Hegel o e alued he a ional o concep ual knowledge in de imen o he epis emological
pa icula i y o a ; Heidegge does he same hing wi h he poe ic knowledge in de imen
o he philosophical/discu si e one. Wha bo h, Hegel and Heidegge , each o aes he ics is
ha his has o be moun ed on he base o he a oidance o he con usion o sphe es among
a and philosophy, o he educ ion o abso p ion o one o ano he . This is he di ec ion
ha Ado no ollows. The e o e, and in summa y, he elemen s o depa u e o he Ado nian
ounda ion o aes he ics a e he ollowing. Fi s , a has epis emological ele ance, i is a
knowledge linked o he u h; second, i is a peculia knowledge, no discu si e; and in
hi d place, ha knowledge exis s beside he philosophical knowledge. In ac , he
de e mina ion on he pa o Ado no o he s a us o aes he ics is o ged on he explana ion
o his las elemen , he ela ionship among a and philosophy, ue ouchs one o he
na u e o aes he ics.
2. A , Dialec ics and Iden i y
Ado no inds in he Hegelian aes he ic he cen al piece a ound which aes he ics is
as much p o iled, he unde s anding o he ela ionship be ween a and philosophy, as he
own philosophy. Hegel has unde s ood he essence (dialec ical) o he aes he ic hing, bu
a om de eloping i and om displaying his aes he ics and his philosophy all in
ag eemen wi h i , he has d owned i and be ayed i wi h ano he philosophical impulse o
a con a y na u e ( he p inciple o iden i y), lea ing i as some hing on y ini ia ed, a
endency, ha ce ainly Ado no eco e s and ha he akes as cen al elemen o his
aes he ic/philosophic hough
20
. F om he e he impo ance o deepening in he Hegelian
aes he ic heo y, main e e en o he pe spec i e o Ado no. The phenomenology o a
ha Hegel p ac iced, and ha i had se ed him as base o de elop a uly dialec ical
hough , i was subjec ed a he philosophical p inciple o he iden i y, and so wha
misca ied ha dialec ical possibili y dena u alising i in a posi i e dialec ics, being
ounded on he p inciple o iden i y, jus he opposi e o he dialec ical hing. A dialec ics
ounded abou he iden i y is no dialec ical. Indeed, Hegel has concei ed a , he same
hing as eligion o philosophy, abo e all, like o ms o he conscience, like posi ions o he
subjec / hough be o e he objec / eali y (S ellungen des Gedankens zu Objek i i ä )
20
.
29
Ado no will la e insis on he same hing, he will say ha “ he aes he ics is no a heo y o
a , bu , in wo ds o Hegel, a ce ain posi ion o he hough be o e objec i i y”
22
. In sho ,
he “aes he ic momen o he conscience” consis s acco ding o Hegel on he aliena ion [o
he spi i ] owa d he sensible hing (En emdung zum Sinnlichen)
23
. The a is bo n o he
spi i and i is o spi i ual na u e, bu in he wo k o a he spi i eaches he non spi i ual
hing, he sensible/ma e ial hing. I we bea in mind ha Hegel a i ms ha he essence o
he spi i is he hough , we can assu e ha in he aes he ic expe ience he hough hinks
wha is no hough , he hing i sel , he eali y o he . The aes he ic expe ience is
dialec ical, in i he spi i comes ou o i sel and inds i s o he one, i pene a es in he
ma e .
Ado no will also echo ha dialec ics, he e o e, does no ep esen a me hod o
come close o a bu some hing ha is immanen o i
24
. Wha is immanen o a ,
he e o e, dialec ics, i is bu he s a emen o he pe manen ension among ellow and
objec , spi i and ma e , hough and eal hing, i educible one o o he , bu also
insepa able, exis ing in cons an ecip ocal e e ence. Nei he dualism no abso p ion o
iden i ica ion: dialec ics. Howe e , he dialec ics as long as opposed p inciple o he pu e
s a ic duali y - ha does no a i e o he o he hing - and o he iden i y - ha does no lea e
om i sel -, and as s a emen o he o he hing, i is wha allows philosophy o uly be
philosophy, ha is, hough o he conc e e hing, o he hing i sel , phenomenology. He e
i is poin ed he philosophical anscendency o he aes he ics disco e ed by Ado no:
aes he ics is he cha ac e is ic ield o he dialec ici y. On he o he hand, i we s a om
conside ing ha a is al eady spi i ual ac i i y in i s o igin, wha Ado no inds as essen ial
nucleus -dialec ical- o he Hegelian aes he ic i is ha i a i ms -a leas in a endency
o m- ha “ he a is a cell o ma e ialism”
25
, ha is o say, p inciple o s a emen -
sal a ion- o he o he , o he non spi i ual hing. The e o e, in a he spi i exis s in
pe manen excu sion owa d wha is no i sel . Ado no has e e ed o his dialec ical
ac i i y ha cha ac e izes a unde he name o ‘mimesis’: “The spi i ual momen o he a
is no wha idealism calls spi i , Ado no has w i en, bu a he he p osc ibed mime ic
impulse (mime ische Impuls)”
26
. This is he way a ‘ hinks’, mime ically o immedia ely,
and no by means o he concep . I does no hink using wo ds bu wi h mimesis, wi hou
30
media ions. Fo his eason Ado no sus ains ha he “linguis ic momen (Sp achähnliche
Momen )” o a is i s “mime ic momen (Mime isches)”
27
.
Howe e , he idealis ic Hegel does no assume bu a he he denies his
mime ic/dialec ical cha ac e o he spi i , and wi h i he suspends he dialec ical possibili y
o he philosophy disco e ed by himsel in he aes he ic expe ience. In he philosophy o
Hegel i weighs mo e he impe a i e o iden i y han he dialec ical p inciple. Hegel has
ecognized, mo ed by a phenomenological impulse ha he cha ac e is ic o he aes he ic
expe ience consis s in ha in i he spi i eaches and pene a es in he o he , in wha is no
spi i . Bu his dialec ical momen o aes he ics -cen e o in e es o Ado no- is
disconnec ed by Hegel himsel when sus aining ha “ he powe o he hinking spi i is in
ha , i is no only cap u ed i sel in i s peculia o m as hough , bu a he i is also
ecognized o i sel in i s ex e io isa ion by means o he sensa ion and he sensibili y, i is
unde s ood in he o he hing o i sel , as soon as u ned in o hough he aliena ed hing and
wi h which i leads again o i sel ”
28
. Hegel annuls dialec ics in which he spi i (subjec ,
hough ) ecognized he o he sensible/ma e ial hing (objec , eali y) o exis in cons an
and i educible ension, and he ansmu es dialec ics in iden i y: “The subjec -objec o
Hegel, Ado no a i ms, is a subjec ”
29
. The own Hegel sus ains -agains he dialec ical
na u e in p inciple hin ed- he iden i y o he spi i ual and sensi i e momen s o a
30
. The
aliena ion is only a momen o e come by he impulse o sel -acknowledgemen
cha ac e is ic o he spi i , o Ve söhnung. The spi i ha Ado no has disco e ed in he a ,
he spi i in gene al, is mimesis, aliena ion, dialec ics; he Hegelian spi i , on he o he
hand, is sel -conscience. Bu o say ha in Hegel he spi i is sel -conscience is equal o say
ha i ends o be ecognized i sel in he seemingly o he hing, annihila ing he
s angeness o he wo ld wi h espec o i , which e eals in las e m like only appea ance.
The wo ld is no essen ially s ange o he spi i ; he inal ela ionship be ween he spi i
and he wo ld is no o s angeness bu o amilia i y. The Hegelian spi i eels e e ywhe e
like a home. The Hegelian s a emen o he spi i like sel -conscience is a co ela e o i s
philosophy o he iden i y. Howe e , Ado no has w i en ha he iden i y “de ou s
e e y hing (alles Ve schlingende)”, “i always looks o he o ali y”
31
. And so Hegel
o e comes he injus ices o which i seems o be subjec ed he wo ld o he conc e e
eali y, he whole blood spilled o he long-su e ing indi idual eali y. Elabo a ed om
31
he poin o iew o he spi i whose na u e is he hough , he eason, ans o med now in o
subs ance o he eal hing, he philosophy, Hegel w i es, “i emedies he appa en injus ice
(das Un ech schein ) and econciles ( e söhn ) i wi h he a ional hing”
32
. The a ional
spi i , ha legi ima es all he eal hing when unde s anding i like an ex e nal eali y o
i sel , does no deny -logically- he pain no he blood; wha i denies is ha hey a e unjus .
They will be able o be om he indi idual's poin o iew, bu no ce ainly unde s ood in
big, sub specie ae e ni a is. Be i said o he wise, om he poin o iew o he eason -no
o he unde s anding- e e y hing is like i should be, he eal hing (wi klich) and he
a ional hing ( e nün ig) a e only one hing
33
.
In a i s momen , he one ha in e es s o Ado no, he Hegelian aes he ic is
phenomenological: open o a , libe a ed o he aes he ic expe ience, i disco e s he
aliena ion, he dialec ics ha cons i u es i essen ially. Bu hen i u ns i s back on his
a is ic peculia i y, i s ops o medi a e assis ing o he own aes he ic expe ience, and i
inds in i wha i has al eady es ablished a p io i, in a pu ely concep ual way: ha he
aes he ic expe ience is pu e mani es a ion o he spi i , so ha in i he spi i does no eally
each he o he hing, i does no aliena e, bu a he i ecognizes i sel in he o he hing, i
aliena es o sel - ecognising. I is he sys ema ic momen o he Hegelian aes he ics, he
one ha inishes de e mining i . Fo his eason i can be said ha he aes he ics o Hegel is
made om ou side o he own a , wi hou medi a ing abou he same aes he ic expe ience,
u ned i s back on he dialec ical speci ici y ha his las one ep esen s, o he aliena ion o
he spi i owa d he o he ha happens in i , and i is so in spi e o ‘ha ing seen i ’. Such is
he o ce o he impe a i e o Hegelian iden i y. Logically, i wha is abou in a is o
symbolizing ideas, ha is o say, ha he spi i is o be ecognized i sel and no o be
aliena ed, and philosophy does i in a mo e app op ia e way, hen Hegel can conside wi h
all p ope y he ques ion ‘ o wha a ’. The c ash o he dialec ical peculia i y o he a
be o e he p inciple o iden i y ans o ms a in o some hing supe luous. A e he dea h -
o supe seding- o he a i is ound he philosophy o he iden i y.
Wha Ado no unde lines is ha Hegel himsel , in he dialec ical essence o he
aes he ics, had disco e ed he an ido e agains his philosophy o he iden i y ha
legi ima ed he wounds o he conc e e eali y healing hem up in alse. In he wo k o a
he spi i is mimesis. In he logic o he wo k o a he e is only spi i when “i is subjec ed
38
1. Immanuel Kan , K i ik de U eilsk a , he . . K. Vo lände (Hambu g: Meine , 1990), p. 32.
2. Vide Theodo Wieseng und Ado no, Dialek ik de Au klä ung (1947), Gesammel e Sch i en, he . . G.
Ado no und R. Tiedemann, Band 3 (F ank u am Main: Suh kamp, 1984), p. 36. Wha Ado no also
condemns is ha when philosophy has come close o a and no o eligion -like in he case o Schelling o
Heidegge - i has made i in an inapp op ia e way, as i he a and he in ui ion possessed some p e e ence
ype wi h ega d o he science and o he concep , and he e o e in de imen -as we will see- o philosophy
like concep ual hough . Ano he hing is ep esen ed by Hegel, whose alua ion and eco e y o he a is ic
hing ha e been done p e ious subo dina ion o he philosophical hing, o he concep ual hing. The e o e
Hegel has no been loca ed e y a om he p edominan a i ude in he mode ni y ha a ou s he p imacy
o science.
3. Geo g Wilhelm F ied ich Hegel, Vo lesungen übe die Äs he ik (1820-1829), I, We ke, Band 13
(F ank u am Main: Suh kamp, 1986), pp. 14-16.
4. Ibidem, pp. 20-21.
5. Ibidem, pp. 23-24, 28-29.
6. Ibidem, p. 151.
7. Ma in Heidegge , De U sp ung des Kuns we kes (1935), Holzwege, Gesam ausgabe, Band 5
(F ank u am Main: V. Klos e mann, 1977), pp. 25, 58-59, 64, 67.
8. Ado no, Äs he ische Theo ie (1969), GS, Band 7, p. 391.
9. Ibidem, pp. 152, 264.
10. Hegel, Vo lesungen übe die Äs he ik, I, p. 25.
11. Ibidem, pp. 23-24.
12. Ibídem, pp. 23 s, 140 s (ed. esp., pp. 16,94).
13. Vide Eugenio T ías, “A e y es é ica en el o oño de la mode nidad”, Le as de Deus o, ol. 47 (1990),
pp. 37-39.
14. Vide Ado no, Nega i e Dialek ik (1966), GS, Band 6, p. 37.
15. Heidegge , Aus de E ah ung des Denkens (1947), GA, Band 13, p. 79.
16. Heidegge , De U sp ung des Kuns we kes, pp. 68-69. Vide Heidegge , Ein üh ung in die Me aphysik
(1935), GA, Band 40, p. 140; Die Zei des Wel bildes (1938), Holzwege, GA, Band 5, p. 69.
17. Ado no, Nega i e Dialek ik, pp. 26-27; Philosophische Te minologie. Zu Einlei ung (1962/63), I
(F ank u am Main: Suh kamp, 1997), p. 167.
18. Ado no, Nega i e Dialek ik, p. 27.
19. Ado no, Philosophische Te minologie, I, p. 81; Nega i e Dialek ik, p. 26.
20. This is he lei mo i ha p esides o e he unde s anding o he aes he ics o Ado no ca ied ou by
Alb ech Wellme ( ide Ve dad, apa iencia, econciliación, en Sob e la dialéc ica de mode nidad y
pos mode nidad, ans. José Luis A an egui (Mad id: Viso , 1993), pp. 15-18) and Vicen e Gómez ( ide El
pensamien o es é ico de Th. W. Ado no (Mad id: Cá ed a/Uni e sidad de Valencia, 1998), passim).
21. Hegel, Enziklopädie de philosophischen Wissenscha en (1817-30), I, We ke, Band 8, § 2-4, 25-26, 74,
pp. 41-45, 90 ss, 163 s.
22. Ado no, Kie kegaa d. Kons uk ion des Äs he ischen (1931), GS, Band 2, p. 262 (No iz).
23. Hege1, Vo lesungen übe die Äs he ik, p. 28.
24. Ado no, Äs he ische Theo ie, p. 211.
25. Ado no, Kie kegaa d. Kons uk ion des Äs he ischen, p. 186.
26. Ado no, Äs he ische Theo ie, p. 305.
27. Ibidem, p. 139.
28. Hege1, Vo lesungen übe die Äs he ik, p. 28.
29. Ado no, D ei S udien zu Hegel (1956/63), GS, Band 5, p. 261.
30. Hegel, Vo lesungen übe die Äs he ik, p. 28.
31. Ado no, Ja gon de Eigen lichkei (1962/64), GS, Band 6, p. 506.
32. Hegel, Vo lesungen übe die Philosophie de Wel geschich e (1822-28), he . . J. Ho meis e , I
(Hambu g: Meine , 1955), p. 78.
33. Hegel, G undlinien de Philosophie des Rech s (1821), We ke, Band 7, p. 24.
34. Ado no, Äs he ische Theo ie, p. 180.
35. Ibidem, pp. 35, 286, 387.
36. Ibidem, p. 179.

39
37. Ibidem, p. 140.
38. Ibidem, p. 524.
39. Ibidem, p. 513.
40. Ibidem.
41. Ado no, Minima Mo alia. Re lexionen aus dem beschädig en Leben (1944/51), GS, Band 4, p. 253.
42. Ibidem.
43. Ado no, Äs he ische Theo ie, p. 518.
44. Ibidem, p. 510.
45. Ibidem, p. 191.
46. Ibidem, pp. 193, 524.
47. Ibidem, p. 197.
48. Ado no, Nega i e Dialek ik, p. 27; D ei S udien zu Hegel, pp. 284-285.
49. Ado no, Die Ak uali ä de Philosophie (1931), GS, Band 1, p. 325; De Essay als Fo m (1954), GS,
Band 11, p. 17.
50. Ado no, Nega i e Dialek ik, p. 17. Ado no has sus ained in se e al places he “p imacy (Vo ang) o he
objec ” (Nega i e Dialek ik, pp. 184-186; Äs he ische Theo ie, p. 384), bu no o dissol ing he hough bu
o o cing i -agains all idealism- o assis o he o he hing, o he eal and conc e e, o wha is no hough .
The p imacy o he objec is a call o he ‘nega i e dialec ics’, a dialec ics ha does no inalise in iden i y,
opposi e o he ‘Hegelian posi i e dialec ics’, idealis ic, ha inishes o e coming he di e ence be ween
hough / hing in iden i y, in alse econcilia ion.
51. Ado no, Äs he ische Theo ie, p. 191.
52. Ado no, Nega i e Dialek ik, p. 62.
53. Ado no, Philosophische Te minologie, I, p. 56; Nega i e Dialek ik, pp. 21, 159.
54. Ado no, D ei S udien zu Hegel, p. 354; Philosophische Te minologie, I, p. 81.