The Eclipse Of Reason criticizes modern society along the lines of it's subjective ethic. It does not mention that it has been mostly Jew's that have lead us down this path to "freedom". Christianity takes the blame for everything that has gone wrong. The essay suggests that a return to Neo-Thomism is the most likely solution, perhaps in this statement they are pointing us toward Noahide laws. I do not know what Neo Thomism is and cannot find a useful definition or book anywhere. Perhaps someone can enlighten me in the comments, it's been a "burning" question.
The essay, The Eclipse Of Reason, of about one hundred pages in length can be found on the web as a free PDF. Its sister document, the Dialectic Of Enlightenment is said by the Adorno/Horkheimer team to be the more academic version of the same statement. The Eclipse of Reason is by no means an easy read. Anyone that has doubts about a grand Jewish conspiracy should probably read the first ten or twenty pages of the Dialectic.
I enjoy cautiously reading Horkheimer & Adorno (they come as a pair, joined at the hip), the stuff is challenging and they do make some valid points. It becomes obvious that they view Kant as a serious threat to the credibility of their project. I'm a follower of Kant and when I read it's usually Kant so I picked up a copy of Adorno's Critique of Kant's Critique Of Pure Reason mostly to read some Critical Philosophy for myself.
Kant is largely unknown today or just remembered as part of the past, outshined by the likes of Berkeley, Hume, and Locke. In reality he is much greater than that, having redefined the problem of philosophy after reading his contemporaries, the most notable of which being Hume. Kant is likely one of the two most quoted philosophers in the history of the subject and is often quoted alongside Plato as being one of the most important thinkers to have ever lived. Schopenhauer is not the only one to have made this statement. Its been repeated often.
His views on space, time and human ontological and epistemological perception forms the basis for his hypothesis that the world cannot exist as we see it. The philosophical problem becomes one of perception.
Adorno's Critique of Kant is short, sharp and directly to the point in the first few pages but also fundamentally wrong. In these few pages of his Critique against Kant he makes a very naive statement that Einstein's relativity disproves the Kantian view on space and time, effectively discrediting the entire Kantian project on freedom itself. This particular criticism is often echoed in online discussions that I've participated in whenever the works of Kant comes up by both casual readers and academics.
Kant's views seem ridiculous to the first time reader and really only gradually begin to make sense on the second or third read. Kant himself even re-wrote it after some initial misunderstandings by his contemporaries. Many misunderstand him as a solipsist as I did on my first read. I can't really get into detail here without writing a hundred pages on the subject.
In the early part of the last century Bertrand Russell wrote some very interesting and short books on various subjects, one being a qualitative explanation on Einsteins relativity. At the end of the book he does a chapter on Kant's view of space and time to caution the reader against believing that the theory of relativity either discredits or credits the Kantian view (both arguments can be put forward with some ground) . This alone speaks to the importance of Kant. A reader of Russell's casual work was expected to be familiar with Kant's main body of work. He cautions the reader that these two views are quite unrelated, one being about perception and one being about reality. It is an obvious point to anyone that has studied Kant in detail, perhaps not so obvious for many who only give Kant a cursory look.
It seems to me that a scholar such as Adorno, who quotes Kant regularly in his works, would not only be aware of the fallacy involved in his basic critique of Kant but would also go to great effort to discredit him, given the goals of the Frankfurt School. The work of this great Christian scholar falling by the waste side in modern thought is no accident. It is a fundamental work on freedom itself, one that will be remembered long after his contemporaries have been forgotten. Its no surprise that those who wish to assault freedom would attempt to discredit Kant in a deep and fundamental way, one that often holds some water in the minds of both casual readers and academics.
Kant explains that his view is subjective, we may look at the world as materialistic in conception or as if there is more to the world than science and causality (cause and effect) itself. There is no penalty paid by science either way. There is no possible way of knowing. Many people do not like Kant, but this fundamental notion put forward by Adorno is incorrect and likely intentionally incorrect.
Two final notes:
(1) The Kantian ethic sits on a subjective basis in the sense that we can choose ethics and morals rather than pure materialism. If this choice is made then morals and ethics become logical and objective. They are are not subjective in themselves. This is a key point as Kantian subjectivity is often used to undermine absolutes in his works.
(2) I would like to caution anyone considering reading Kant's opus magnus in that his Logic notes by Wolfgang Schwarz and the recently published Routledge Guide by Sabastian Gardner are absolutely necessary prerequisites to reading Kant. Gardner's work makes reading Kant actually possible for a non academic such as myself. Garner has a YouTube talk on Kant.
He and other modern scholars do attempt to discredit him in subtle ways.