Today's Critical Theory - isn't even "critical"

"Critical consciousness" is the woke's biggest lie. Their foundational lie, or Ur-lie. The idea goes back 92 years to 1930 - the year Max Horkheimer was appointed director of the Frankfurt School to become the leader of the fledgling Critical Theorists (CTs). 2 key texts are:

• 1938. Max Horkheimer: "Traditional and Critical Theory" (essay)
• 1968. Jurgen Habermas: "Knowledge and Human Interests" (book) - section 3: "Critique as the Unity of Knowledge and Interest"

Marx had argued that the standpoint of the proletariat, or working class, gave it a universal perspective, so enabling it to act in the interests of all society. This notion justified Marx's "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", and the revolutionary "overthrow of Capitalism". CTs wanted something similar but were wary of giving such a universal perspective to the working class; due to the disaster of the Soviet Union, and to the "capture" of the working class by capitalists (see: Chapter 4 of Dialectic of Enlightenment (1944, Adorno & Horkheimer), "The Culture Industry - Enlightenment as Mass Deception")

CTs eventually settled on an abstract notion they called critical theory (AKA: "critical consciousness" today) as a perspective to produce knowledge which can act in the interests of all, or the great majority of us; so such ideas can be "liberatory". In Critical Theory' critique of "traditional theory" (see essays cited above), the Critical Theorists elevate "critical consciousness" above all other ways of seeing the world because, for them, the claim to be making things better was their existential choice in life - their way of "making a difference".

Q: So what's the problem?, or as they say, What's my problem with it, don't you approve of liberation? A: My issue is how they obscure their CT rationale. CTs such as Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse, famously obscurred their method. So it seems the CT must've entered their heads as an act of God, miracle, or special gift. Q: Does CT owe anything to traditional reason? A: Not a question you're allowed to ask them. The method is handed down, on tablets of stone, on the mountain, by your commissars. Q: Don't have commissars? A: The answer to that is presumably - join the Party or fake it.

Identitarianism replaces Class Politics

Leftwing woes with the working classes, in the 1970s and 1980s, led the Left to a new perspective from which to claim liberatory ideas. They settled on oppressed peoples as their proletariat replacement: women, racial, ethnic, and sexual minorities. Soon followed by 'nature' (Apparently all nature is oppressed by humanity - so claiming to liberate nature, for example, by rewilding, also enables one the same conceit of "speaking for liberation".

Of course, the claim to a universal perspective was now abandoned, and everything soon became a claim to particular perspectives. Pomo thrived in the 1970s, and 1980s. Postcolonialism, Intersectionality took over. But throughout it all a strand of Critical Theory survived from the New Left of the 1960s and '70s.

Critical Theory accomodated itself to all these, self-styled, liberation movements and ideas. Because they all had the same claim in common: a promise of liberation. But in the transition from old universal Marxism / CT to the new identitarian CT, everything acually changed. As if we moved from Alaska to the Sahara but want to keep our herb garden and grow it in the same way. The new CT prey on our old fashioned, Enlightenment, ideas of universalism, rights, liberty, equality. They use our Liberalism as a lever against Liberalism, to promote particularism. The Left now reject "universalism, rights, liberty, equality" as white, racist and imperialist values. Nevertheless, they use these values against Liberalism to promote their politics of equity. They want to have their cake and eat it.

1. The very notion of critical theory implies a universal perspective. Universalism is entirely rejected by wokes; yet they have the conceit to pretend to speak from a universal perspective by calling themselves critical theorists!
2. My second point against CT is more involved and relates to how CT itself evolved, how it sees itself, the training and education actual new CTs have.

   Habermas (1968) split knowledge into 3 realms:

   • Practical knowledge (including science)
   • Interpretive knowledge (Hermeneutics)
   • Critical Theory

   With a clear message: neither practical knowledge nor hermeneutics were liberatory, only critique could be so. The original CTs: Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse and even Habermas had deep philosophic training and knowledge. Although they wandered off into speculation their training somehow saved them from sounding like complete fools.

   Modern woke CTs have no such foundation in Western philosophy. Postcolonialism tells the left - all Western ideas are white racist ideology! With their love of censorship and safe spaces, they have no experience in robust debate, so they don't even know how to avoid basic philosophical fallacies. Avoiding philosophical fallacies is trained into us - by practiced debate. No one ever memorized how to debate and then sucessfully did it first time without blundering with fallacies. Modern CTs are missing Philosophy 101 but believe themselves masters of Advanced Philosophy = Critical Theory! They are trained in one, two or three ideas as befit their occupation of particular niches in academia but their general knowledge in philosophy, science, debate is appalling. In short: the self-styled critical theorists are inept and extremely uncritical.

Pomo?

I'm not even going to mention it because, as it relates to CT, it's irrelevant.

Foucault's concept of Power is a fallacy

It's popular because it's the foundation for entire disciplines of fake academic knowledge.

Foucault's concept of power is a fallacy because:

1. Foucault created an abstract idea of power. Much of the historical evidence he used (from: Madness and Civilization, Discipline and Punish, History of Sexuality, ...) was partial and cherry-picked. There are other histories which criticise power in the real, not in the abstract; other histories which come to different conclusions regarding power, expertise, ... in society.
2. 'Power' becomes an abstract idea for Foucauldians. Then, they use that abstract idea to support other abstract ideas such as systematic racism. They build an empire of abstractions to support their new ideology. But - as they see it - everything is ideology - so they can never know how and why they're wrong.
3. Foucauldian power - legitimizes actual power in society by misleading people. We should criticise power on the basis of the concrete (measured) evil it does - not on how our feelings and ressentiment motivate us. For example: watch how pomos and identitarians are taken in by COVID, climate propaganda. Misled people now allow actual power to rule uncriticised - while they're busy criticising abstract Foucauldian power.

How bad faith actors in Science and its identitarianism critics enable each other.

James Lindsay did an interview with Accad and Koka Report. Lindsay argues against postmodernism, identitarianism, woke, cultural relativism, and epistemic relativist views of science.

But, sometimes the "scientists" and "experts" are wrong. How can we tell? Like James says: "ask for evidence". If the scientist/expert understands "The Science", they'll be able argue for their view on the basis of science - NOT on the basis of their membership of the scientific elite - but on the basis of evidence arrived at by experiment and observation. If scientists/experts don't try to argue from the evience then that's a good sign they are fake scientists.

Paradoxically :

1. pomos and identitarians - fighting "power" - enable actual power (billionaires, governments, power elites, big business, NGOs, GOs, IGOs, cartels, .... ) to corrupt science ! They enable power by pretending to "fight" against it. Because epistemic relativist arguments against science are fake arguments.
2. fake scientists - who don't argue from the evidence - but argue from expertise, credentials, 'argument from authority', ... - enable pomo, identitarians, and epistemic relativism. Because when we argue that we're right on the basis of some abstraction (The Science), or some other fallacy, then we enable rampant skepticism, pomo, and suspicion of ALL truths.

One set of bad faith, actors enable the other set - who they pretend to think of as their nemesis - by using wrong arguments.

BTW:

1. statistical correlation alone is not a scientific argument
2. BTW: some of these bad faith scientists I refer to seem to be pomos themselves - they certainly don't have an argument against pomo

Established science is sometimes (or often) wrong.

See:

1. Retration Watch.
2. Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, John P. A. Ioannidis, 2005
3. What has happened down here is the winds have changed, Andrew Gelman, 2016
4. Cargo-cult statistics and scientific crisis, Philip B. Stark & Andrea Saltelli, 2018
5. What is Enlightenment?, Immanuel Kant
6. “It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.”-
   - Professor emeritus Hal Lewis