- 1. Your definitions are subjective opinions and therefore “wrong” by your own reasoning
- 2. #notallcriticaltheorists
- 3. Critical theory’s goal is not to provide a definitive account of reality or prescribe a specific political program, but rather to foster critical awareness and social transformation.
- 3. Critical theory isn’t paradoxical, it just:
- a) offers a critique of the dominant conceptions of truth that have been privileged in Western thought
- b) offers a more nuanced and contextualized understanding of truth that recognizes the role of power relations and historical contingencies in shaping knowledge
- c) says that what counts as true or false, meaningful or meaningless, is not a matter of discovering an objective reality, but rather a matter of interpreting and constructing reality
- d) challenges the idea that there is a single, neutral, and universal standard for truth that exists independently of social and historical contexts
- 4. We don’t have a problem with objective truth per se, but the concept of objective truth is problematic
- 5. The concept of objective truth itself is not neutral, but is shaped by social and historical factors.
- 7. Objectivity rarely exists in social situations. There are thousands of lenses that you can view a social issue through, and none of them will ever be “the objective truth”
1. Your definitions are subjective opinions and therefore “wrong” by your own reasoning
I’m not arguing that subjectivity is wrong, and it isn’t. I’m arguing that critical theory elevates subjectivity to the exclusion of an attempt at objectivity.
2. #notallcriticaltheorists
Good. This site aims to alleviate delusions that arise from the interpretation of critical theory outlined herein. While critical theory may boast a range of nuanced interpretations, we are concerned with the aetiology of the current culture war trajectory. This trajectory, as evidenced through countless interactions and debates, emanates from a paradoxical platform.
3. Critical theory’s goal is not to provide a definitive account of reality or prescribe a specific political program, but rather to foster critical awareness and social transformation.
This site appreciates critical theory’s place alongside traditional theory. However, we are concerned with the elevation of critical theory-informed philosophy above those which do aim for a definitive account of reality. Further, how should we understand which “critical awareness” is valid without a description of reality of which it claims awareness? Or which “social transformation” is needed, in the absence of a definitive description of the reality to be transformed? Finally, critical theory arguably does influence a variety of political stances.
4. Critical theory isn’t paradoxical, because it doesn’t make an objective claim in rejecting the possibility of objective truth. Instead, it just:
a) offers a critique of the dominant conceptions of truth that have been privileged in Western thought
The pursuit of objectivity deserves to be privileged in truth-seeking, because by definition* it gets us closer to reality. If you are of the critical theoretical persuasion, and still respect the pursuit of objective truth, then see 1.
*We already hear the question being asked: “whose definition?”, as if that matters.
b) offers a more nuanced and contextualized understanding of truth that recognizes the role of power relations and historical contingencies in shaping knowledge
If objective truth exists, it applies to all people, places, and times, regardless of individual or cultural perspectives and relations – i.e. it is universal and neutral. If critical theory posits that truth is always a product of social and historical processes and power relations, then it denies that truth exists outside of those phenomena. Such an interpretation of critical theory necessitates a belief that objective truth does not exist – a belief which presumably and paradoxically is taken to be objectively true.
c) says that what counts as true or false, meaningful or meaningless, is not a matter of discovering an objective reality, but rather a matter of interpreting and constructing reality
If truth is merely a matter of interpretation, then objective reality doesn’t exist. This site firmly rejects such a position.
d) challenges the idea that there is a single, neutral, and universal standard for truth that exists independently of social and historical contexts
The standard for assessing what is truth may be bound to socio-historical context, but the truth is not. If we agree that discovering objective truth is worthwhile, then we agree that standards for assessing truth should be revised toward the greatest objectivity. In the same way, if we value subjective truth (we do), we should make efforts to understand subjectivity.
5. We don’t have a problem with objective truth per se, but the concept of objective truth is problematic because it can mask the role of power relations and cultural norms in shaping what is considered true or false
The concept of objective truth can be used to advance various agendas, but it is important to separate the truth from the agenda. Objective truth, such as the understanding of genetics and heredity, can be used to support controversial actions or ideologies. That does not mean that the concept of objective truth is problematic, nor does it mean that the objective truth is no longer true, but rather that its applications and interpretations can be influenced by power dynamics and cultural norms.
6. The concept of objective truth itself is not neutral, but is shaped by social and historical factors. Different communities and cultures may have different understandings of what counts as objective truth, and these understandings may be influenced by a range of factors, such as language, tradition, and historical context.
Nevertheless, an objective reality which exists outside of communities and cultures is neutral and universal. For example, some cultures may place a greater emphasis on the cyclical nature of time, while others may view time as linear and directional. These different perspectives on time may not be compatible with each other, but are not necessarily incompatible with the most objective understanding of time. The most objective concept of time – based on current scientific understanding and empirical evidence – can be considered the most accurate and reliable, and can subsume the various perspectives on time that occur in different contexts.
7. Objectivity rarely exists in social situations. There are thousands of lenses that you can view a social issue through, and none of them will ever be “the objective truth”
That may be the case, but it doesn’t mean we stop aiming for the objective truth. Not all claims/lenses are equal – they correspond to reality to greater or lesser extents. The problem with “woke” is objectively asserting *against* objectivity (a paradox).