Retaining the Good, the True and the Beautiful, While Bringing Critical Theory Down to Earth

IF 0.4 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
J. Braun
{"title":"Retaining the Good, the True and the Beautiful, While Bringing Critical Theory Down to Earth","authors":"J. Braun","doi":"10.1080/14409917.2023.2195804","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT\n I emphasize how The Return of Work in Critical Theory: Self, Society, Politics deals with details on labor problems ordinarily not handled by modern day critical theory, whereas Experience: New Foundations for the Human Sciences to a large extent justifies the use of a phenomenological approach to psychology with applications for theory building in general, and Authoritarianism: Three Inquiries in Critical Theory provides commentary on the concept of authoritarianism that has ramifications for use of critical theory for understanding political problems. I emphasize the distinction between naturalism of the sort practiced in the physical sciences and neo-Kantian historicism that reflects religious ideals of morality even if in secular form. Thus, I distinguish between motive (can be driven by psychological impulse, but often comes originally from the acceptance of cultural meaning), and mechanism that has explanatory value because of acceptance of the reality of physical causality, usually the result of social structure acting as a controlling mechanism. Similar distinctions are made by Scott Lash, for the purpose of distinguishing between deductive and inductive reasoning. The book on authoritarianism is discussed with emphasis on how their conceptualization fits neither deductive nor inductive conceptualizations entirely. I conclude with a commonsense discussion of these same topics.","PeriodicalId":51905,"journal":{"name":"Critical Horizons","volume":"24 1","pages":"88 - 102"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical Horizons","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2023.2195804","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT I emphasize how The Return of Work in Critical Theory: Self, Society, Politics deals with details on labor problems ordinarily not handled by modern day critical theory, whereas Experience: New Foundations for the Human Sciences to a large extent justifies the use of a phenomenological approach to psychology with applications for theory building in general, and Authoritarianism: Three Inquiries in Critical Theory provides commentary on the concept of authoritarianism that has ramifications for use of critical theory for understanding political problems. I emphasize the distinction between naturalism of the sort practiced in the physical sciences and neo-Kantian historicism that reflects religious ideals of morality even if in secular form. Thus, I distinguish between motive (can be driven by psychological impulse, but often comes originally from the acceptance of cultural meaning), and mechanism that has explanatory value because of acceptance of the reality of physical causality, usually the result of social structure acting as a controlling mechanism. Similar distinctions are made by Scott Lash, for the purpose of distinguishing between deductive and inductive reasoning. The book on authoritarianism is discussed with emphasis on how their conceptualization fits neither deductive nor inductive conceptualizations entirely. I conclude with a commonsense discussion of these same topics.
坚持善、真、美,把批判理论落到实处
摘要:我强调《批判理论中的工作回报:自我、社会、政治》如何处理现代批判理论通常无法处理的劳动问题的细节,而《经验:人文科学的新基础》在很大程度上证明了心理学的现象学方法在理论构建中的应用,《威权主义:批判理论中的三个问题》对威权主义的概念进行了评论,这对使用批判理论理解政治问题产生了影响。我强调物理科学中实践的自然主义和反映宗教道德理想的新康德历史主义之间的区别,即使是世俗形式的,以及由于接受了物理因果关系的现实而具有解释价值的机制,通常是社会结构作为控制机制的结果。Scott Lash也做出了类似的区分,目的是区分演绎推理和归纳推理。这本关于威权主义的书讨论了他们的概念化如何既不完全符合演绎概念化,也不完全符合归纳概念化。最后,我对这些相同的主题进行了常识性的讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Critical Horizons
Critical Horizons SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
18
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信