A Priori Critique: The Three Commentary

Author: Liu Shilin
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2001-05-01
Features: Since the 1990s, phenomena such as the rampant plagiarism and, the arbitrary behavior of academic cliques in various settings, and the institutionalization and powerization of academia itself have directly impacted the fate of Chinese academia. Are these "experiences" not the very targets that contemporary academic criticism should first critique? Unlike the common attribution of these issues to the external environment of academic production, I interpret them from the context of transcendental critique as "due to being accustomed to rough mental labor and never having clarified the distinction between mental labor and material production in the realm of ideas." In other words, precisely because people face significant difficulties in understanding the purity of academia, the various opportunistic behaviors and scandals in the contemporary academic world continue to emerge. There are two main reasons for this: First, although the modern demand for academic independence emerged in Chinese academia in the early 20th century, and some scholars regarded academic independence as a fundamental marker of the establishment of modern Chinese academia, the actual situation is the opposite of this rational form of academia. The vast majority of Chinese scholars have become accustomed to depending on external environments and pressures, and in most cases, they are completely unaware of what true academia is, merely viewing it as a tool for acquiring livelihood resources. This has created the necessary "material conditions" for transcendental critique targeting pure concepts or subjective consciousness. Second, although some people may occasionally express profound or superficial "confessions" or lamentations about the "decline of scholarly refinement," on one hand, due to the severe desire-driven state of academic subjects, these expressions are mostly mere "instinctive reactions" triggered by practical gains and losses. On the other hand, due to the excessive fragility of rational reflection and critical awareness, they are actually unable to delve deeply into such reflections and critiques. As a result, the pure academic consciousness and efforts that occasionally spark in the midst of historical accidents are quickly devoured by various empirical calculations and utilitarian considerations, making the conceptual and ideological differences between academia and non-academia increasingly ambiguous.
In Transcendental Critique, the author's main understanding of transcendental critique has three layers: From a philosophical perspective, it is a transcendental critique of the cognitive schemata used to organize sensory materials; from a linguistic perspective, it is a narratological analysis of the deep grammatical structures that determine discourse encoding and meaning generation; and from the perspective of mental production methods, it is a critical examination of the intrinsic production concepts of producers that already exist before the reproduction of the spirit. Among these three layers of interpretation of the transcendental critique concept, the first layer originates from Kant and is also what has always been widely recognized. The other two interpretations are further developments within the modern academic perspective. This development is certainly not "wild speculation," but rather because there is a family resemblance between "transcendental forms," "deep grammatical structures," and "intrinsic production concepts." As some scholars have pointed out, Transcendental Critique is indeed filled with Kantian influences, and therefore, in terms of foundational theory, it does not offer much to commend in terms of innovation. If one must discuss the significance of the topic of Transcendental Critique, then in my opinion, it lies in its certain degree of clarification and limitation of empiricism, particularly in the "critical reduction" of misinterpretations and distortions of transcendental philosophy by empiricism or rational dogmatism, and it quite clearly affirms the important significance of transcendental critique for academic culture that represents the essence of human reason.
It is clear that to delve deeper into transcendental critique, relying solely on the classical spiritual resources of Kant is certainly not enough. It can also be frankly admitted that due to the principle of "specialization in one's field" and inadequate preparation for modern transcendental philosophy theories, such as phenomenology, I myself am not the most suitable person to discuss the topic of transcendental critique. In terms of the overall level of Chinese academic thinking, I feel that it is already sufficient to honestly accept some enlightenment from Kantian philosophy, to know that there is a pure reason different from practical functions in life, and especially to understand its important significance for a dignified spiritual life.
Transcendental Critique has not absorbed the new achievements of phenomenology in consciousness analysis, which is undeniable. However, on the other hand, this is also because the basic direction of transcendental critique established by Kant has not undergone a fundamental reversal in phenomenology, as Merleau-Ponty said, "Phenomenology is transcendental philosophy." Therefore, from a broader perspective, they are consistent in terms of approach and goals. It can also be said that there is no subversive deconstruction or fundamental transformation between transcendental philosophy and phenomenology, but rather that in modern phenomenological philosophy, Kant's analysis of the structure of self-consciousness has been made more detailed. Such issues as Husserl's particular focus on the "correspondence between conscious acts and objects" and the "construction of objects in consciousness" are all examples of this.