In my master thesis, I try to reconstruct Adorno's view on philosophical language, discussing its influences, its strengths and weaknesses, and its importance to his philosophy as a whole.Following an introduction which lays out Adorno's fairly pessimistic starting point, there are several chapters dealing with different aspects, or elements of language. First, there is a chapter on terminology, and why Adorno avoids defining philosophical terms as well as creating and introducing new ones. Instead of defining concepts (thus restricting their power and bandwidth), he accepts that words have a large variety of meanings, and uses them this way: quite ambiguously.Next, there is a section focusing on text composition, discussing how Adorno himself structured his texts. In an attempt of structuring texts in a non-hierarchical way, he avoids dividing his books into chapters as much as possible. What is more, there is a tendency to shorter texts. This eventually leads to the question how philosophical theory can be expressed in short, fragmentary, aphoristic, almost literary texts.After that, there is a chapter on extending the means of language: Adorno suggests using a group of concepts, forming a structure which he calls "constellation". Also, he opts for re-introducing a rhetorical, expressive element into philosophical language. Thus, he tries to balance the logical, argumentative elements of language with expressive and mimetic ones.Finally, the role of the philosophical author him- or herself turns out to be essential. What power, and what responsibility do philosophical writers have? How to use, and how to break their power? Does their use of language reflect their attitude towards things and people?To sum up, contradictions can be found on every level of his language concept. I try to explain how they are motivated, and if possible, how some of these conflicts could be solved ? even if that implied reasoning with Adorno against his own ideas.