I put the following question to Grok: What does Bill Vallicella say in critique of the work of Theodor W. Adorno? Here is the answer it spit out in a few seconds, and though it did not dig up everything I have written about Adorno online,  it ain't bad.  It's a brave new world, kiddies. Future shock is upon us. Fasten your seat belts.  

William F. Vallicella, in his Substack post "Contra Adorno: A Preliminary Plea for Omphaloscopy" (published February 27, 2021), offers a critique of Theodor W. Adorno’s philosophical approach, focusing specifically on Adorno’s views on subjective reflection, contemplation, and the relationship between subject and object as presented in Adorno’s *Philosophische Terminologie* (lectures from 1962–63). Below is a summary of Vallicella’s key points of critique, grounded in the provided source:

1. **Critique of Adorno’s Rejection of Contemplation (Versenkung)**:
– Vallicella highlights Adorno’s dismissive attitude toward *Versenkung* (meditative contemplation or "navel-gazing"), which Adorno associates with an illusory, tautological, and contentless form of subjective reflection. Adorno argues that such inward focus leads to an "abstract inner emptiness" and fails to engage with external reality, producing statements like "I am I" or Heidegger’s "Being is Itself." Vallicella finds this dismissal problematic, suggesting it unfairly caricatures meditative practices and overlooks their potential for genuine insight. He defends contemplation by referencing historical practices, such as those attributed to St. Symeon the New Theologian, which involve focused introspection that Adorno might have reductively labeled as navel-gazing.[](https://williamfvallicella.substack.com/p/contra-adorno-a-preliminary-plea)

2. **Subject-Object Mediation and Hegelian Influence**:
– Vallicella critiques Adorno’s Hegelian framework, particularly the idea that the subject has no content except through its relation to external objects, and that subject and object mediate each other. Adorno posits that a subject sunk into itself is "contentless," and true depth arises only when the subject "externalizes itself" and engages with "otherness." Vallicella challenges this view, arguing that it risks reducing the subject to a mere function of its relations, a position he sees as rooted in Hegelian monism. He questions how entities can be constituted solely by their relations, noting that relations presuppose the existence of relata with some intrinsic being. This, Vallicella argues, reveals a flaw in Adorno’s (and Hegel’s) relational ontology, which he sees as anti-personalistic and overly abstract.[](https://williamfvallicella.substack.com/p/contra-adorno-a-preliminary-plea)

3. **Totalitarian Denial of Transcendence**:
– Vallicella’s most pointed critique is that Adorno’s philosophy is "totalitarian" in its denial of transcendence. He interprets Adorno’s thought as aligning with Hegel’s dictum "Das Wahre ist das Ganze" (the true is the whole), where everything is mediated by the social whole, and nothing possesses substantial being independently. Vallicella argues this view eliminates any possibility of transcendence or individual autonomy, trapping the subject within a monistic system where all meaning derives from social relations. He sees this as a denial of personal identity and spiritual depth, contrasting it with philosophies that affirm individual or metaphysical transcendence.[](https://williamfvallicella.substack.com/p/contra-adorno-a-preliminary-plea)

4. **Philosophical Implications**:
– Vallicella suggests that Adorno’s rejection of subjective depth and transcendence reflects a broader materialist and collectivist bias, influenced by Marxism and Hegelian dialectics, which prioritizes the social whole over individual or metaphysical realities. He argues that this approach undermines the possibility of authentic philosophical inquiry into the self or ultimate truth, reducing philosophy to a critique of social structures. Vallicella’s defense of "omphaloscopy" (navel-gazing) is a provocative counterpoint, advocating for the value of introspective practices that Adorno dismisses.[](https://williamfvallicella.substack.com/p/contra-adorno-a-preliminary-plea)

### Context and Limitations
Vallicella’s critique is narrowly focused on Adorno’s treatment of contemplation and subjectivity in *Philosophische Terminologie*, rather than engaging with Adorno’s broader oeuvre, such as his work on the culture industry, negative dialectics, or aesthetics. The critique is also shaped by Vallicella’s own philosophical commitments, which lean toward defending individual transcendence and contemplative practices, contrasting with Adorno’s critical theory and its emphasis on social critique. The source does not indicate whether Vallicella addresses Adorno’s specific works like *Dialectic of Enlightenment* or *Minima Moralia*, so the critique may not fully capture Adorno’s complex views on modernity, capitalism, or art.

### Conclusion
William F. Vallicella critiques Theodor W. Adorno for rejecting contemplative introspection as illusory and for adopting a Hegelian framework that denies transcendence and reduces the subject to its social relations. He sees Adorno’s philosophy as totalitarian, monistic, and dismissive of individual depth, arguing that it overlooks the value of subjective reflection and relational autonomy. This critique, while sharp, is limited to a specific aspect of Adorno’s thought and reflects Vallicella’s defense of contemplative and transcendent perspectives. For a deeper understanding, readers may consult Vallicella’s Substack post directly or explore Adorno’s primary texts to assess the fairness of these criticisms.[](https://williamfvallicella.substack.com/p/contra-adorno-a-preliminary-plea)

If you’d like me to search for additional sources or analyze specific works by Adorno or Vallicella in more detail, let me know!