월명
선수와 해설가의 차이점은 무엇인가. 선수는 상대방과 죽기 살기로 실전에서 싸우는 사람이다. 반면에 해설가는 그늘에 앉아 객관적 입장에서 개개인 선수들의 잘잘못을 지적하거나 칭찬하기도 한다. 감독의 전술 전략을 평가하고 마음에 들지 않으면 신랄한 비판을 가하기도 한다. 해설자는 객관성을 생명으로 하는 위치에 있다 보니 모두 양비론이다.
좌파 진영에는 선수들이 넘치고 우파에는 해설가들만 득실거린다. 지금 한국의 좌우 전쟁에서 좌파들의 경우 20명의 선수가 뛰고 있다면 우파들은 고작 대여섯 명의 선수들이 뛰는 형국이다. 공격은커녕 방어하기에도 힘에 부치는 모습이다. 보수가 단결해야 한다고 하니 죽어도 못하겠다 주장이다. 차라리 문재인 총통이 하는 게 낫다는 주장도 있다. (조갑제닷컴, 발췌)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
북한헌법에도 '사람중심', 문재인도 '사람중심'
한국에선 요사이 ‘사람 중심’이란 말을 남용한다. 문재인 대통령은 경제에 갖다 붙여 ‘사람 중심 경제’라고 한다. 무역협회는 ‘사람중심 한국 무역’이라 하였다. 문제는 ‘사람’의 정의(定義)이다. 민중주의라는 한국판 계급투쟁론에 빠진 이들은 ‘사람’에서 자본가, 자유민주를 신봉하는 우파세력, 이승만, 박정희, 국군, 대기업을 배제한다. 적대계층으로 생각하기 때문이다.
북한헌법에도 '사람중심'이 들어 있다. 제3조는 <조선민주주의인민공화국은 사람중심의 세계관이며 인민대중의 자주성을 실현하기 위한 혁명사상인 주체사상, 선군사상을 자기 활동의 지도적 지침으로 삼는다>고 하였다.
문재인 대통령의 신년 기자회견 모두 연설에 등장한 '사람 중심'에는 민중주권론의 영향이 많이 묻어 있다. '촛불' '노동자' '비정규직' '소상인'을 아끼고 기업인, 태극기 시민, 군인, 과학자는 무시되는 경향이다. 실제로 법 집행도 그런 계급적 입장에서 하고 있다. (조갑제, 발췌)
------------------------------------------
바햐흐로 홍위병 시대!
裵振永(월간조선)
지금 우리는 어떤가? 권력을 위해서라면 무슨 짓이든 하려는 정치꾼들, 어떤 정치적 폭풍이 몰아쳐도 나만 비껴가면 된다고 생각하는 얍삽한 정치인과 관료들, 권력에 영합해 있는 일 없는 일 꾸며대면서 대중을 선동하는 언론들, 싸구려 민족주의를 파는 지식인들, ‘계급의식’을 고취하는 ‘증오교육’의 세례를 받고 자라난 어린 세대들, 사랑과 자비보다는 미움과 갈등을 더 열심히 설파하는 종교인들이 우리나라에는 없다고 자신할 수 있을까? (발췌)
출처 | 월간조선 2018년 1월호
------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
나심 탈레브
This list summarizes what's wrong with behavioral economics. A more expanded piece to follow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
찰스 왕태자가 동종요법을 옹호하는 원인은, 서구 의학이 제대로 기능을 하지 못한다는 반증이기도 하다.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
한때 이산화탄소 배출로 기온이 6도나 상승한다는 보고가 있었지만, 새로 나온 연구에 따르면, 비록 이산화탄소가 배로 증가한다 해도, 온도는 겨우 3.4도 오를 거라고 한다.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
주민들을 귀찮게 한다는 이유로 스위스 시민권이 거부된 여자. 소들의 목에 방울 다는 것을 반대했다.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
비판이론은 좌파들의 목적을 달성하기 위해 여성이나 성소수자 등을 정치적 동반자로 이용할 뿐이다. 좌파들의 목적은 사회주의의 달성이다.
Jordan B Peterson, Critical Theory, and the New Bourgeoisie
But why have these arguments been banished? The immediate answer is social pressure. As social justice advocates have come to dominate Western culture, they’ve created a situation where interlocutors are more intent on burnishing their adherence to the correct opinions than they are about discovering something new, learning the truth, or even engaging in open and reciprocal dialogue. Hollywood actors wear political slogans to awards ceremonies, comedians lecture their audiences rather than entertain them, and television hosts go into battle with their guests rather than interview them. Naturally, this has pushed out opposing voices.
The methodology underpinning much of the social justice perspective is known as critical theory. What’s notable about critical theory is that it specifically distinguishes itself from ‘traditional’ theories through its emphasis on criticism. This makes the apparent unwillingness of its adherents to engage with criticism themselves especially noteworthy. When you explicitly emphasise your criticality and base your theory on a commitment to look beneath appearances and see things as they really are, you don’t get to be selectively critical. So why does this phenomenon exist?
* * *
Critical Theory draws heavily on Karl Marx’s notion of ideology. Because the bourgeoisie controlled the means of production, Marx suggested, they controlled the culture. Consequently, the laws, beliefs, and morality of society reflected the interests of the bourgeoisie. And importantly, people were unaware that this was the case. In other words, capitalism created a situation where the interests of a particular group of people—those who controlled society—were made to appear to be universal truths and values, when in fact they were not.The founders of critical theory developed this notion. By identifying the distorting effects power had on society’s beliefs and values, they believed they could achieve a more accurate picture of the world. And when people saw things as they really were, they would liberate themselves. “Theory,” they suggested, always serves the interests of certain people; traditional theory, because it is uncritical towards power, automatically serves the powerful, while critical theory, because it unmasks these interests, serves the powerless.
All theory is political, they said, and by choosing critical theory over traditional theory one chooses to challenge the status quo, in accordance with Marx’s famous statement: “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.”
But as it becomes more widespread and its adherents more powerful a challenging situation emerges, because then critical theory must then be turned on itself.
And so, the question becomes: are the values and beliefs of critical theory itself universal, or are they also partial to particular interests?
One might interpret Peterson as shedding light on this problem by pointing out that the morality of contemporary Western society, with its emphasis on equality and liberation, is acting in the service of particular psychological interests while acting against others. In other words, a similar situation to that which Marx and the original critical theorists criticised the classical liberal bourgeoisie for: presenting their own interests as universal values or truths.
Consider the concept of liberation. It’s held in society to be an unquestioned moral good, one that no reasonable person could possibly disagree with, in large part due to a variety of positive connotations. Yet, in practice, its implementation invariably involves dismantling societal structures in accord with some people’s psychological interests and in conflict with other people’s. Hence, we see conservative people feel increasingly alienated from mainstream culture, as cultural leaders systematically attack everything from sexual norms to familial structures to national identity to cultural history, ostensibly in the pursuit of liberation.
The identity of the group providing the intellectual foundation for both critical theory and the social justice movement are mostly white middle-and-upper-class intellectuals from the political left in advanced Western economies. It may be more illuminating to see this group’s interests as the driving force of societal change, rather than those of the ever-changing group of the powerless. In effect, the intellectuals of the political left are creating the type of society they personally want to live in. ‘The powerless’ are temporary allies on this journey.
Over the past few decades, this group has become increasingly powerful, essentially becoming a bourgeoisie much like the one Marx and the early critical theorists were criticising, and using many of the same mechanisms: suppressing criticism through control of the news media and now social media, enforcing rigid etiquette in speech and behaviour, using the education system to teach its values, and most importantly, representing its own interests as universal values and beliefs.
Peterson represents a growing group of people who are now waking up and starting to look more closely at contemporary morals, beliefs, and institutions that they had previously held beyond reproach and are now asking: “Are these things really universal or interest-neutral, and if not, whose interests are they serving and whose values do they represent?” This is a process, I think, that is inevitable. (발췌)
전문은 아래 주소에
http://quillette.com/2018/01/17/jordan-b-peterson-critical-theory-new-bourgeoisie/
------------------------------------------------------
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기