Siinviidatu ei ole vabalevis ja lineaarses seoses siinse kodulehe fookusteemadega, kuid on vältimatult kõikide nende taustal ning mõtestamise aluseks. Oma koha leidis see – ilmselt eeskätt kriitilisest mõtlemisest huvitatutele mõeldud tekst – põhjusel, et siit leiab lihtsa vaevaga mitmeid poolt ja vastuargumente kriitilise teooria valdkonnas. Asger Sørensen vastab enda raamatu Capitalism, Alienation and Critique. Studies in Economy and Dialectics kriitikutele ning sedalaadi mõttevahetused on sageli väga nauditavad ja õpetlikud, kuna võimaldavad ühes tekstis haarata nii kõnealuste küsimuste poolt kui vastuargumente. Allpool lisan vaid mõned lugemishuviks mõeldud vihjed, mis puudutavad eeskätt immanentse kriitika valdkonda ning jätan ülejäänu lugejatele nautimiseks.

Autori avang:

In this article, I will try to respond to critique raised by three local fellow critical theorists, Luise Li Langergaard, Per Jepsen and Malte Frøslee Ibsen. 2 All three welcome my argument that classical Critical Theory should be taken seriously, including greater emphasis on the critique of political economy, but they also raise important issues for discussion.

Immanentsele kriitikale lähemale:

My claim is rather that immanent critique in its emphatic sense is characteristic of the work of Adorno, whereas Horkheimer and Habermas conduct ideology critique (I.)

Ideoloogia kriitikast:

Now, ideology is itself a contested concept, playing important but different roles for a whole range of prominent philosophers since the French Enlightenment. […] Hence, in the wake of 20th century Critical Theory, ideology can be understood simply as a set of false beliefs. As the young Habermas laconically states: ‘Ideology is existing falsity, practically established, with practical implications and ultimately only superseded through praxis’.

Tõeküsimus:

Ideology critique thus ‘denies the truth of the suspicious theory by revealing its untruth’. 17 Assuming truth to be the whole truth and nothing but the truth – and this was what Hegel, Marx et al. assumed – ideology is a distorted idea and thus inherently false.

Immanentsest kriitikast täpsemalt:

Hence, immanent critique is not merely a matter of formal logic, ‘but always in addition a matter of content, a confrontation of concept and object (Sache). In itself, it is to pursue the truth, wanting concepts, judgements, theorems to express themselves’. […] Moreover, we can detect two different movements in the process of immanent critique: one away from error and another progressing towards an end. 31 Immanent critique in this sense thus confronts the matter at hand with the concept, and having established the falsity of the particular empirical object, it moves on to continue the pursuit of universal conceptual truth.

Ideoloogia … kelle mõtted ja mis eesmärgil? Domineerivad mõttekäigud kuuluvad enamasti ikka domineerijatele:

Moreover, we should also remember that it is in the interest of every potential ruler to present his ideas as in the societal interest of all citizens, but that such ideas are unlikely to be equally valid and beneficial for everybody. This is what makes ruling ideas suspicious and ideological, and a critique of sets of such ideas is what we term ‘critique of ideology’ or ‘ideology critique’.

Sørensen, A. (2022). Critical theory, immanent critique and neo-liberalism. Reply to critique raised in Copenhagen. Philosophy & Social Criticism, 48(2), 184–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/01914537211059506