Critical theory = arrogant rubbish?

Critical theory has had to wield with a problem that is built-in to it. What I mean here is the possibility for transcendental critique in general. Critical social theory has confronted critique towards itself for its arrogant nature. How could theorists that are immanent to our culture take a standpoint where they criticize the most essential structures of society and refer to something trancendent while being as immanent to it as anyone else?

Here, writing about this subject, I notice I use many concepts spontaneously and not explaining them detailed. I reckon some of these concepts I use should be defined. This is important for my further writing on the critical theorys possibility. First transcendence, what is it all about? It is opposite to immanence, something that isn't present, at least in the traditional sense. Critical or Marcusean language uses this concept in the sense that that what is not present in this societys widely adapted language, is also trancendent to its language. For example, concept "intelligence" has to be analysed critically before you can tell what real intelligence is. Marcuse thinks that the "real" meaning has to be value-based. There is no reality outside our own, at least not for concepts. When Plato or Aristotle talked of human, when they said that "man is..." the 'is' in here meant also 'ought to be', it means for the basic or deepest essentia in human beings that tries to actualise itself. Modern logic, on the other hand, doesn't have this moral judgement on its 'is'. It isn't bothered by the essentia of the concepts it uses as long as they are coherent. A is to B as C is to D. So now, to the critical theory, when you say "man is free" it's translated as "man should be free". Nowadays language easily distances itself from this kind of translation. What I mean here is that the narratives of reality are nowadays told in more descriptive ways. Even though everyone can see the benefits and reality-based character of the Humes famous gilliotine, it's characteristic for our times to be causcious of doing absolute moral judgements. One, very odd but maybe in a poetic way illuminating way of saying this is that the modern time's misunderstandings are due to the misunderstanding of Humes gilliotin. When Hume says that 'is' doesn't imply 'ought' he means (or should mean) only scientific facts. From E=mc^2 you can't deduce that E should be mc^2. But when this scientific mood comes to govern every part of life, it becomes hegemonic and I guess it's something like that today. We just describe how the world is and when we criticise the society, it's based on a feeling, not on a conception of reality tied to that feeling. So, the critique becomes very weak when some economist comes to show that this suffering is mandatory defect for our nation to survive in the hard competitive world.

This has been very difficult subject for me to write in english. This writing has become a rabbit. It has bounced from subject to subject without ever having the attention span to really concentrate on one subject. I have so much things to write of this subject that writing a nutshell-type of an entry isn't an easy task. Well my main point in this question of critical theorys possibility on its critique is that the critique it's giving is trancendent only in some sense. It's trancendent in the sense that it says that the way this society is build is basically wrong and the possibilities that are given to people to govern their own lives are too narrow. But it is immanent in sense that it finds the fuel to its critique from inside the society through the method of abstraction. Abstracting social reality it find the "real" reality that should be base to the new, greater society. One concept important for Marcuse and critical theory in general is 'freedom'. If we want to define it in hayekian way as being able to follow the signals on markets, this society would be heading towards better future. But we don't, not really. Even if some people would say that they accept the Hayeks idea, they really don't. It's distancing oneself from life and not seeing the real behind it all. (many) Ideas are product of our surroundings. We just have to be critical towards them. Critical theory isn't saying more, I think. But the abstract way (that I think is necessary for it to get to the basics of the problems) makes many people angry. And how convenient is that for the big corporations? This is frustrating from the standpoint of critical theorys supporter.

On postmodernism

I just watched a movie called 24 Hour Party People. Watching that movie I keep sayng to myself "This is postmodern film." What is that magic quality that makes me say that, what in that movie is so "postmodern"? Or is anything?

So this movie is about 70's and 80's Manchester, or Madchester as that eras Manchester is often referred to. Term Madchester comes from the youth movement of that time that was mainly canalized through music. The movie is about bands that made greatest appearence at that time and the movie is told using man called Tony Wilson as medium through which most of the bands at the era are connected. Tony Wilson was a central figure on promoting many huge bands such as Joy Division, New Order and Blue Monday.

Well, enough about the summation of the idea. Now, to the reasons why I consider this movie to be postmodern. Maybe these reasons somehow clear up at least my conception on postmodern as a concept. Firstly, this movie is eye-catchingly aware of its ways of expressing itself. Now I'm talking of this movie as if it is a person, but I refer to whole of the producing team, kinda. Well, what I mean by being aware of oneself is that the movie comes out as a self-ironic ensemble, constantly being conscious of the effects it uses. Michael Winterbottom, the director of the movie, I guess is the mastermind behind this. Tony Wilson was and is very self-conscious man and this movie tells the story from his angle very plausibly.

Secondly, the story is told in very fragmented way. And this fragmentation could be a negative statement but when it's handled very nicely, like in this movie, it's a great effect with wich you can sort of "bring the movie closer to the viewer". Here I compare Michael Winterbottoms outlook on cinema or movie making to that of Jean-Luc Godards. They both have this way of making moments count. These moments are then wowen together to this narrative texture, resembling the way how memory functions. This allows spectators to be embedded in the centre of the film and be living (in the stong sense of the word) throughout the movie. Someone might disagree totally with this comparison of these two great directors but I see many similarities (although also great discrepancies) between 24 Hour Party People and Pierrot le fou (translated in silly ways: "Crazy Pete" or "Pierrot goes wild") and the way that these movies confront the audiences imagination. Well, I got a little bit lost from the subject and this became more of a writing about cinema but still, I recommend these two films because they both add on the understanding of postmodernism and human beings life in general. Both being very different kind of films, they complete each other in nice ways. The humor, the fragmentation, the moment, that is to say, the human essence, is immanent in these movies. Nice.

Bitter-sweet symphony.

Last session was interesting, because all of us know each other and yet it was a new kind of sitution for all of us. Debate was intensive at times and even though none of us students speak english like it'd be our mother language, most of the ideas got pretty well articulated and understood.

Psyhological egoism is an enduring trend. It makes some plausible claims over human beings minds structure. Plausibility holds until the arguments are taken seriously, viz. dissected philosophically. I’m not saying that egoism isn’t a driving force of human beings, I simply claim that psychological egoism is just too easy a solution to a problem where is no easy answers. I have prejudice towards all uncompromising solutions, of which I think psychological egoism is an excellent example. It doesn’t pay respect to worlds many dimensionsal and sometimes even contradictory character. Next I’ll approach this issue from societal viewpoint, and to be exact, critical social philosophys viewpoint.

Critical theory has its starting point in societys incorruptible examination. And while being incorruptible, it admits that it can’t be impartial or neutral. Standpoint is inevitable, but it must be articulated and explicated as well as it’s possible. I’ve been wondering from what viewpoints would psychological egoism be advantageous. Theories create reality as much as they describe it. And my – maybe far-fetched – idea is that people who are psychological egoists (or think that they and others are) are best citizens in capitalist society. Psyhological theory from this viewpoint is nothing but a justifier of selfish behaviour so that executive managers and other Very Important Persons can sleep their nights with clear conscience. Because if everyone is selfish in nature, one doesn’t have to contemplate if his/her actions are justified or wrongful. They are mere manifestation of human essence. And in addition when morally judgemental monkey’s off capitalsts back, he can announce his victory over those who are feeble and therefore bitter. Bitterness doesn’t come from unfair treatment that feeble get, it comes from their incapability to execute their own egocentric plans.

Here psychological egoism is seen as a theory that is made for some purpose. Or maybe that’s not the point. The interesting thing is that this trend is very popular even though I can’t even imagine how psychological egoism could be proven or even reasonably approached. And quite frankly, I have difficulties in seeing why his theory would be acquired if there wasn’t need for clearer conscience..

Is my critic biased and one-sided? It most certaily is, and I want to come forward with it. But I merely tried to shed light on this issue from a standpoint that feels the most of my own. And from a standpoint that is not always remembered in our modern, consumeristic society.

And another blog's in the internet.