>>67 As I said, there's crossover. But just because there's a grey area in the middle that doesn't mean no distinction can be made. In this case the distinction is that theory is in conversation with a particular tradition, and is informed in content and style by that tradition. As an example, most of Agamben's work definitely fits squarely in the "theory" category, but the second he started saying covid wasn't real, it was considered to step outside the bounds of acceptability. So there's definitely something to what you're saying here, in this instance a respected theorist can lose respect for having the wrong opinion. However, if you disagree with Ambagen's position, maybe it's perfectly reasonable to lose respect for someone who you think is just doing bad theory.
There are some comedians who write (in my opinion) unfunny jokes that are very edgy, and fall back on their edginess when they are accused of being unfunny. Using "you guys are just offended by my edgy humor!" to write off criticism that the jokes aren't funny.
What I'm getting at here is that there's some real effect at play here in which limits are imposed on what is acceptable to criticize in your "critical theory", but that fact in itself is not reason enough to dismiss the field, since there may be good reasons as to why certain limits should exist. I'm not sure where I stand personally on this matter, where I personally draw the line precisely. But I'm pretty confident that like, the critique of pure reason is on on one side and the protocols of the elders of zion is on the other side.
Coming back to what I said at the start, this relationship with a particular tradition is important because that tradition has certain practices, particularly in terms of intellectual rigor. There is an expectation that a work in this field holds to a certain standard. Although what's interesting is that what that standard is or should be is also a matter of discussion within the field which beholds to said standard. For example different literary forms of philosophizing, from greek dialog to aphorism to formal logic to deleuzian schizo rambling etc, none of these hold to each other's standard, and they're all in dialogue with others, making arguments for their own form from within that form. So I would like to see some theory written in the conspiratorial form which actually critically examines it's own form with respect to it's position within the broader tradition of theory and philosophy.
As I said, there's crossover. But just because there's a grey area in the middle that doesn't mean no distinction can be made. In this case the distinction is that theory is in conversation with a particular tradition, and is informed in content and style by that tradition.
As an example, most of Agamben's work definitely fits squarely in the "theory" category, but the second he started saying covid wasn't real, it was considered to step outside the bounds of acceptability. So there's definitely something to what you're saying here, in this instance a respected theorist can lose respect for having the wrong opinion. However, if you disagree with Ambagen's position, maybe it's perfectly reasonable to lose respect for someone who you think is just doing bad theory.
There are some comedians who write (in my opinion) unfunny jokes that are very edgy, and fall back on their edginess when they are accused of being unfunny. Using "you guys are just offended by my edgy humor!" to write off criticism that the jokes aren't funny.
What I'm getting at here is that there's some real effect at play here in which limits are imposed on what is acceptable to criticize in your "critical theory", but that fact in itself is not reason enough to dismiss the field, since there may be good reasons as to why certain limits should exist. I'm not sure where I stand personally on this matter, where I personally draw the line precisely. But I'm pretty confident that like, the critique of pure reason is on on one side and the protocols of the elders of zion is on the other side.
Coming back to what I said at the start, this relationship with a particular tradition is important because that tradition has certain practices, particularly in terms of intellectual rigor. There is an expectation that a work in this field holds to a certain standard. Although what's interesting is that what that standard is or should be is also a matter of discussion within the field which beholds to said standard. For example different literary forms of philosophizing, from greek dialog to aphorism to formal logic to deleuzian schizo rambling etc, none of these hold to each other's standard, and they're all in dialogue with others, making arguments for their own form from within that form. So I would like to see some theory written in the conspiratorial form which actually critically examines it's own form with respect to it's position within the broader tradition of theory and philosophy.