아도르노에서 반성의 도덕과 충동의 도덕
초록/요약
본고는 아도르노(Theodor W. Adorno)의 윤리적 사유를 다룬다. 우선 서론에서 ‘도덕 자체에 대해 구성적인 반성과 충동의 긴장 관계’라는 문제 지평을 설정하고, 이 문제를 규명하는 데에 아도르노 철학이 기여할 수 있는 바를 밝힌다. 아도르노 철학에서 우리는 ‘반성 또는 사유의 도덕’과 ‘충동 또는 동물의 도덕’이라는 두 가지 도덕을 추출해 낼 수 있으며, 이 둘 사이에서 빚어지는 이율배반적 긴장 관계는 도덕적 의의를 가질 수 있다. 구체적으로, 아도르노는 ‘반성의 도덕’을 통해 도덕은 오로지 직접적인 실천과 행위에서만 의미를 얻는다고 주장하는 ‘실천주의’와 대결하며, 동시에, ‘충동의 도덕’을 통해서는 도덕적 행위는 이론적으로 합리적인 방식으로 정당화되는 규칙이나 원리로부터 도출된다고 주장하는 ‘이론주의’와 대결한다. 2장에서는 아도르노가 어떻게 방법적 부정주의에 입각하여 이 같은 두 개의 전선에서 대결을 펼치는지를 논구한다. 3장에서는 방법적 부정주의의 근거인 실체적 부정주의를 표현하는 아도르노의 근본악 논제를 탐색한다. 반성과 충동이 원칙적으로 화해나 통일 같은 관계를 맺을 수 없다면, 이는 세계 자체 내에 구조화되어 있는 근본악 때문이다. 아도르노의 명제 “거짓된 삶 속에 올바른 삶은 존재하지 않는다”를 단서로 삼아 근본악 논제를 구성하는 다양한 의미 층위들이 분석된다. 4장에서는 반성의 도덕이 본격적으로 논구된다. ‘미니마 모랄리아’의 분석을 통해 도덕이 곧 반성이라는 점이 논구되고, 개념적 사유의 비판적 자기반성으로서의 부정변증법이 갖는 도덕적 함축을 밝힌다. 또한 개념적 사유 자체에 구조화되어 있는 규범성과 윤리적 규범성을 연계시키는 ‘규범적 인지주의’가 논의된다. 5장에서는 충동의 도덕이 본격적으로 논구된다. 아도르노의 ‘새로운 정언명법’의 분석을 통해, 육체적 수난 및 동물적 충동이 도덕의 불가결한 조건임이 밝혀진다. 이어서 칸트의 순수 실천이성은 행위의 실천성을 상실할 수 밖에 없다는 아도르노의 주장이 논의되며, 아도르노가 ‘덧붙여진 것’이라고 명명한 충동 개념의 의미가 분석된다. 마지막으로, ‘형이상학적 경험’이라는 개념을 통해 도덕의 유물론적 계기로서의 충동이 형이상학적 초월과 어떤 관계를 맺는지가 논구된다. 결론에서는 반성의 도덕과 충동의 도덕이 맺고 있는 이율배반적 긴장관계가 강조된다. 아도르노의 도덕철학은 ‘비동일적인 것’이라는 관념으로 집약되며, 비동일적인 것은 이론과 실천이라는 두 측면 모두에서의 환원불가능성을 표시한다. 아도르노에게 도덕은 비판과 저항, 부정에서만 존립한다. 아도르노의 윤리학은 우리의 도덕적 사유와 행위라는 계기를 통해 억압되거나 상실되거나 도외시당한 또 다른 계기들에 대한 원칙적으로 무한한 배려에서 성립하는 것이다.
more목차
1. 서론 ········································································································· 1
1-1. 아도르노의 윤리학? ······································································· 1
1-2. 문제의 제기 ····················································································· 3
1-3. 논의의 개요 ·················································································· 15
2. 반성과 충동의 긴장 ····································································· 18
2-1. 실천주의에 대한 비판으로서의 반성의 도덕 ·························· 20
2-2. 이론주의에 대한 비판으로서의 충동의 도덕 ·························· 30
3. 아도르노의 근본악 논제 ··························································· 38
3-1. 주체성의 상실 ··············································································· 42
3-2. 도덕적 실재론 ··············································································· 48
3-3. 동일성 사유의 “허위” ································································· 52
3-4. 인륜성의 몰락 ··············································································· 58
4. 반성의 도덕 ······················································································ 66
4-1. 미니마 모랄리아 : 상처 입은 삶으로부터의 반성 ················· 66
4-2. 개념의 규범성 ··············································································· 86
4-3. 부정변증법과 동일성사유 ··························································· 92
5. 충동의 도덕 ······················································································ 96
5-1. 새로운 정언명법 ··········································································· 96
5-2. 아도르노의 칸트 윤리학 비판 ················································· 101
5-3. ‘덧붙여진 것’과 충동 ································································ 105
5-4. 형이상학적 경험 ········································································ 116
6. 결론 ····································································································· 122
참고문헌 ·································································································· 127
