【推文】James Lindsay - A truth about Critical Theory - it's UTOPIAN IDEALISM

連結

• 原推文1 - x.com/conceptualjame...

原文及個人翻譯

推文

A truth about Critical Theory.

Critical theory is described by its creators, like Max Horkheimer, and most prominent exponents, like Herbert Marcuse, as being a kind of "second dimension" of theoretical thought. Here's the secret: it's UTOPIAN IDEALISM.

The game in critical theory is to hold out belief in an ideal circumstance and to criticize the real, existing thing against the idea of that ideal. That's what a critical theory is and does. It doesn't describe a better circumstance; it criticizes the current circumstance for not being some kind of ideal thing someone might be able to imagine or, in fact, almost imagine.

If someone is holding a real thing to an ideal standard, even if that thing does not or cannot exist, and criticizing the real thing according to that standard, they're doing a critical theory. That's what it is.

The "second dimension of thought" represented by Critical Theory is idealism.

批判理論的真相：

批判理論是由其建立者，如馬克斯·霍克海默（Max Horkheimer），以及最傑出的倡導者，如赫伯特·馬庫塞（Herbert Marcuse）所描述的一種「理論思想的第二維度」。 其中的秘密是：它是一種烏托邦式的理想主義。

批判理論的遊戲在於，堅持對理想情況的信念，並根據這種理想的概念來批評現實、現有的事物。 這就是批判理論的內容和作用。 它並不描述一種更好的情況；它批評目前的情況，因為它不是某種理想的事物，而這種事物是某人可以想像或幾乎可以想像到的。

如果有人將真實的事物置於理想的標準下，即使這個事物不存在或無法存在，並根據該標準來批評真實的事物，那麼他們就是在進行批判理論。 這就是它的本質。

批判理論所代表的「理論思想的第二維度」是理想主義。

Technically speaking, a full critical theory a la Horkheimer, Marcuse, the Frankfurt School, and the Woke Left (along with all Marxists) is a kind of negative idealism.

It doesn't hold out an ideal. It merely claims that the idea of an ideal is across the horizon of imagination (read their literature and see how often they talk like this!). What it does is maintains that the existing world isn't actually ideal, so it must be wrong.

This relieves them of even having to articulate what the ideal would look like. They don't have to know what it would look like at all. They don't even have to be able to imagine it. They just have to know it wouldn't be like this, and the this becomes the target of the critique at the heart of their critical theory.

從技術上講，一種完整的批判理論，如霍克海默、馬庫塞、法蘭克福學派以及「覺醒」左派（以及所有馬克思主義者）所倡導的，是一種負面理想主義。

它並不堅持對某種理想的信念。 它僅僅聲稱，對理想的想法超出了想像的範圍（閱讀他們的文獻，你會發現他們經常這樣說！）。 它所做的是，斷言現有的世界實際上不是理想的，因此一定是錯誤的。

這使他們甚至無需闡述理想會是什麼樣子。 他們完全不需要知道它會是什麼樣子。 他們甚至不需要能夠想像它。 他們只需要知道它不會是這樣的，而「這個」就成爲了批判理論的核心目標。

Critical Race Theory doesn't know what an ideal world would look like, but it wouldn't have any racially disparate outcomes or racism at all. It has no idea what the ideal is, just what it is not. That's negative idealism.

Communists never had a clear description of what the ideal "stateless, classless society" would actually look like, despite floating some ideas. They had no idea what that ideal would look like, just what it is not (based on private property and exchange). That's negative idealism.

Anytime you see someone criticizing a real thing against the mere idea of an ideal that isn't like this, you're dealing with a critical theory.

That is, you're dealing with Woke thinking.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

批判種族理論並不知道理想的世界會是什麼樣子，但它不會有任何種族差異的結果或任何形式的種族主義。 它對理想一無所知，只知道它不是什麼。 這就是負面理想主義。

共產主義者從未對「沒有國家、沒有階級」的社會究竟會是什麼樣子有一個明確的描述，儘管他們提出了某些想法。 他們對這個理想一無所知，只知道它不是什麼（基於私有財產和交易）。 這也是負面理想主義。

每當你看到有人根據某種理想的概念來批評真實的事物，而這種理想說「現實並非就像理想的樣子」，那麼你就是在接觸一種批判理論。

也就是說，你正在接觸「覺醒」思維。

感謝您對這個問題的關注！