How can we contextualise an understanding of the critique of modernity as such if one cannot even grasp the full import and depth, and not merely in simple descriptive terms and theroretical categories, the actualized totality of the ideas endlessly replayed, reinforced and reinterpreted in connection with the world in its dynamics? How is one to begin an understanding, within understandings, of the nature of a thought-act, their embededness, their emergent meanings and consequences? What is the content of all critique?
This conditions a reminder that any act of deproblematicizing, any sitting back in the chair of imported images with a self-satisfied smile is so much religion, a slip of the mind.
In this sense, the history of the world is so much the history of praxis - as always, negatively defined? To repeat, why is utility-evolution so popular nowadays? Because its conveniently true. But then, truth didn't matter so much in the past.
No comments:
Post a Comment