--- layout: post status: publish published: true title: ! 'Adorno terminology: intentio recta and intention obliqua' wordpress_id: 1457 wordpress_url: https://www.martineve.com/2011/09/06/adorno-terminology-intentio-recta-and-intention-obliqua/ date: !binary |- MjAxMS0wOS0wNiAxNDo1ODoyMyArMDIwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMS0wOS0wNiAxNDo1ODoyMyArMDIwMA== categories: - Academia - Philosophy - Theodor Adorno tags: - academia - Philosophy - definition - latin comments: - id: 6583 author: Yuri author_email: email@example.com author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMS0xMi0yMiAyMDo0NjowMCArMDEwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMS0xMi0yMiAyMDo0NjowMCArMDEwMA== content: ! 'Very helpfull, just the clarification I was looking for. I guess all people reading the Negative Dialectics should join strengths somehow! I told my Epistemology teacher I had begun reading it and he sort of congratulated me, just for trying... Either he underestimated my capacity - understandably - or the book is a real challenge... It''s probably both! Thanks, anyway, and good studies!' - id: 6678 author: Alex O author_email: firstname.lastname@example.org author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMi0wNC0wOSAxNTo0NDoxNiArMDIwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMi0wNC0wOSAxNTo0NDoxNiArMDIwMA== content: ! "Interesting! How did you trace the reference in Adorno to Hartmann?\r\n\r\nIt remains unclear to me whether Hartmann intends this as two modes of attention or (as in Kant) a metaphysical explanation for human experience? In Kant, the noumenal / phenomenal distinction is clearly not a difference between two kinds of perception or attention." - id: 6679 author: Martin Paul Eve author_email: email@example.com author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMi0wNC0wOSAxNTo1Njo1NyArMDIwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMi0wNC0wOSAxNTo1Njo1NyArMDIwMA== content: ! "Hi Alex,\r\n\r\nI'm not convinced that it is a sound referent given Adorno's aversion to several strains of phenomenology; indeed, if you have a better prior usage of these terms (perhaps in relation to Kant?), then I'd love to hear them.\r\n\r\nMethodologically, as this was peripheral to my research, I performed a Google Books search on the two terms and found that the main source, and indeed oldest source -- Samuel Otto's A foundation of ontology: a critical analysis of Nicolai Hartmann -- seemed to be on Hartmann. As I said, I could be wrong here!" - id: 6695 author: Jacob Morris author_email: firstname.lastname@example.org author_url: '' date: !binary |- MjAxMi0wNC0yNiAwMjo1NzoxMiArMDIwMA== date_gmt: !binary |- MjAxMi0wNC0yNiAwMjo1NzoxMiArMDIwMA== content: Thanks for this possible explanation. I was just reading "On Subject and Object," which is another location where Adorno uses these terms. Your post helps. ---
Reading Negative Dialectics, I was unable to track down a succinct, suitable definition of the terms "intentio recta" and "intentio obliqua", first appearing on page 69 of the Ashton translation.
It turns out the phrases are derived from the work of Nicolai Hartmann who introduced the terms to correspond to the Scholastics' intentio prima and intentio secunda. The intentio recta, therefore, is the state when cognition focuses upon the true object, while intentio obliqua is a state of consciousness which focuses upon the image of the object in the intellect.
In the neo-Kantian schema, this refers to whether we know the thing-in-itself ("intentio recta") or the image of the thing ("intentio obliqua").
Featured image by Пероша under a CC-BY-NC license.