New - Left 운동의 사상적 배경 : Frankfurt 학파의 사회이론비판을 중심으로

문현병 한국국민윤리학회 1984 倫理硏究 Vol.18 No.1

비판이론의 부정의 행복이론

문현병 釜山女子大學校 人文科學硏究所 2010 白楊人文論集 Vol.15 No.-

예술과 해방

문현병 대동철학회 2003 大同哲學 Vol.21 No.-

사회적 생산으로서 예술은 여러 가지 사회적 기능을 지니고 있다. 예술의 중요한 사회적 기능은 인식 기능이다. 오늘날 예술의 인식 기능은 쇠퇴하고 있는데, 그 이유는 과학적 인식이 예술적 인식을 지배해 왔기 때문이다. 그 결과 예술의 해방 기능은 제한되거나 상실되고 있다.예술의 인식 기능을 회복하기 위해서는 예술적 상상력을 복원시키는 일이 아주 중요하다. 예술적 상상력은 과학·기술과 기술적 합리성에 의해 확립된 모든 지배로부터 인간을 해방시켜 줄 수 있는 힘이다. Art as social production have many social functions. The main social function of art is the epistemological function. Today the epistemological function of art is weakened because the scientific knowledge have ruled over the artistic knowledge. As the result, the emancipation function of art is restricted or lost. To restore the epistemological function of art, it is very important to resurrect the artistic imagination. Artistic imagination is the power to emancipate man from all the domination which established by science-technics and technological rationality. In this paper I stress upon that only through the restoration of artistic imagination, the social function of art as emancipation function will fulfill itself for a society without domination.

정보통신문화와 주체성

문현병 대동철학회 1998 大同哲學 Vol.2 No.-

정보통신문화는 주체의 의식과 행위에 많은 영향을 미치고 있다. 그러한 문화를 형성시킨 새로운 기술로서의 디지털 테크놀로지는 다양성, 유연성, 가변성, 유동성, 탄력성, 상호성(쌍방향성), 증식 가능성, 그리고 멀티미디어 시스템 등과 같은 고유의 특성과 체계를 지닌다. 정보문화론자들은 그러한 특성이나 체계로부터 적극적 이념들을 도출해 내고 있다. 요컨대 아메리카니즘, 다원주의, 테크노 플라톤-헤겔주의, 분권주의(민주주의), 범세계주의, 자유주의, 민중중심주의, 휴머니즘 등이다. 그러한 추상적인 이념들은 그 사회적 적용의 구체적인 효과에 의해 정당성을 확보할 수 있다. 그런데 지금까지의 정보화과정과 그 내용을 분석해 볼 때, 그러한 이념들은 ‘가상적’ 이데올로기라고 평가할 수 있다. 이념들이 이데올로기로 역전되고 있는 것은 디지털 테크놀로지를 발전시키고, 이를 사회에 이전..배치하고, 실제생활에 활용하는 주체가 국가-자본권력이라는 점 때문이다. 시민사회권력의 상대적 취약성에 기인하는 정보통신문화-주체 연관의 심각성은 바로 그 점에 있다. 국가-자본권력이 주도하는 정보화는 디지털 테크놀로지의 이념들이 표방하고 있는 것과 달리 배타적인 정보상품화, 디스토피아, 중앙집권주의 등을 초래하고 있다. 그러한 내용들로 구성된 정보통신문화는 주체에게 부정적 영향을 미칠 수밖에 없다. 필자는 그 점을 1) 보편주의적 가상과 주체, 2)다원주의적 가상과 주체, 3) 유토피아적 가상과 주체, 4) 민주주의적 가상과 주체, 5) 휴머니즘적 가상과 주체 등으로 나누어 고찰하였다. 오늘날 정보화의 일반적 경향, 즉 ‘분산(분권)→통합(중앙집권)’은 시민사회를 구성하는 개별 주체에게 부정적이다. 국가-자본이 주도하는 정보통신문화의 주체에 대한 지배력이 더 강해질수록, 자아(주체)는 더욱더 위축되고 왜곡되고 조작되고 소외될 수밖에 없다. 이를 극복하는 길은 정보통신문화에 대한 시민사회권력의 적극적 개입뿐이다. Compunication culture influences the consciousness and behavior of the subject in many respects. Digital technology as the new technology which established the compunication culture contains the innate characteristics and system, i.e. variety, flexibility, changeability, mobility, elasticity, mutuality(interactiveness), proliferousness, and the multimedia system. Several positive ideas has been deduced from thus characteristics and system by many theorists of the compunication culture; Americanism, pluralism, techno Plato-Hegelianism, decentralism(democracy), cosmopolitanism, liberalism, popularism, humanism, etc.. Such abstract ideas could gain the legitimation by the concrete effects of their application to the society. When and if analyse the process and contents of informatization up to the present, we could evalualte them as the "virtual" ideologies. The fact that these ideas reverse to the virtual ideologies due to the point that the subject who develop digital technologies and trnasfer and locate them into society and apply them to reality is State-Capital power. Thus it is very important that the category compunication culture-subject which originates in the wekness of civil society power. Now the information led by only State-Capital power brings about the exclusive merchandizing of information, distopia, centralism contrary to the advocacies of the ideas of the digital technology. The compunication culture constituted thus contents necessisarily influences subject negatively. I treat the points as follow: 1) universalistic false-imagination and subject, 2) pluralistic false-imagination and subject, 3) utopianistic false-imagination and subject, 4) democratic false-imagination and subject, 5) humanistic false-imagination and subject. At present the general tendencies, as it were the trend "separation(decentralization)→integration(centralization)" is negative to the individual subject who constitutes civil society. The greater the power of domination of compunication culture which State-Capital leads over the suject become, the more self(subject) would be shrunk, distorted, manupulated, alienated inevitably. The only way to overcome the situation is positive participation or intervention of civil society power in compunication culture.

대중지배로서 문화산업

문현병 대동철학회 1999 大同哲學 Vol.6 No.-

오늘날의 문화산업은 국가경제뿐만 아니라 현대인의 일상생활과 의식을 지배하는 중요한 영역이다. 문화산업의 발전 논리는 국가��À��¼기업��À��¼개인 차원에서 서로 차이를 드러내고 있다. 그리고 문화산업이 현대사회에 미치는 영향에 대한 견해나 평가도 양면적이다. 이 글은 그러한 점을 체계적으로 정리하면서 필자의 비판적인 입장을 밝힌 것이다. ‘1. 문화산업의 형성과 발전’에서는 문화산업과 문화상품의 일반적 특성을 밝히고, 현대 문화산업의 범위와 분야를 정리하였다. ‘2. 문화산업의 문화발전 논리’에서는 세계자본주의 체제 하에서 국가��¼��À기업��¼��À문화산업론자의 상이한 문화산업 발전 논리와 한국 정부의 문화산업 발전계획을 소개하였다. ‘3. 지배와 착취로서 문화산업’에서는 그러한 논리의 허구성, 문화산업을 통한 대중에 대한 지배와 착취, 문화산업이 개인에게 미치는 부정적 영향이나 효과 등을 분석��À��¼제시하였다. ‘4. 문화산업인가, 문화인가?’에서는 국가나 기업에 의해 주도되는 문화산업의 부정적 결과를 극복할 수 있는 가능성을 모색하기 위한 몇 가지 방안을 제시하였다. Contemporary culture industry is very important sphere which constitute national economy and dominate individual consciousness as well as daily life. The logic of development of culture industry is differentiated according to the interest of the nation, enterprise(capital), individual. Furthermore the view or appreciation of the influence of culture industry on contemporary society is ambivalent. This paper aims to summarize the point and to propose critical view. In '1. The Formation and Development of Culture Industry' I attempted to make clear the general characteristics of culture industry and cultural commodities, and to summarize the scope and fields of contemporary culture industry. '2. The Logic of Development of Culture Industry' was focused on the different logic of the nation, enterprise, and critics of culture industry under the world-capitalist system. In addition to I introduced the five-year plan of culture industry of Korean Government. In '3. Culture Industry as domination and Exploitation' I criticized the falsehood of those logics, the domination and exploitation on the individual, and analyzed the negative influences and effects of culture industry on the individual. '4. Culture Industry, or Culture?' was shared in groping for the possibility of overcoming the negative consequences of culture industry led by the nation or capital. Finally I suggested several ideas.

텔레비전은 이윤추구 위한 문화산업일 뿐이다

문현병,Mun, Hyeon-Byeong 대한출판문화협회 2002 출판저널 Vol.319 No.-

마르쿠제의 생물학적 혁명

문현병 대동철학회 1999 大同哲學 Vol.5 No.-

마르쿠제의 생물학적 혁명이론은 문명비판임과 동시에 해방이론으로서 그의 비판이론의 전개과정에서 아주 특징적인 것이다. 그의 생물학적 혁명이론은 프로이트주의에 대한 재해석에서 나온 것이다. 그는 프로이트주의를 정신치료의 차원에서 수용하는 것이 아니라, 그것을 사회이론이나 정신분석의 철학으로 격상시키고자 한다. 이를 통해 그는 현대문명을 비판할 뿐만 아니라, 억압으로부터의 해방의 가능성을 찾고자 한다. 이 논문은 마르쿠제의 ��Å��Å에로스와 문명-프로이트에 대한 철학적 탐구��Å��속에 있는 ‘문명(화)의 변증법’을 재구성하고, 그 속에 드러난 ‘본능구조 혁명이론’의 현대적 의의를 검토해 보고자 한 것이다. 이를 위해 필자는 1) 마르쿠제의 비판이론과 프로이트주의의 관계, 2) 마르쿠제의 프로이트주의적 문명비판, 3) 생물학적 혁명에 대한 마르쿠제의 전망, 4) 본능구조의 혁명의 내용 등을 차례대로 정리하고, 5) 결론 : 혁명과 유토피아에서 그 문제점들을 지적하였다. Herbert Marcuse's theory of Biological Revolution is the critique of civilization, and rather unique to his critical theory as revolution theory. This theory originated from the reinterpretation of Freud's theory. He accepted Freud's theory not as psychoanalysis itself, but as the critical theory of society or the philosophy of psychoanalysis. By doing so, he attempt to not only criticize contemporary civilization, but seek to possibility of emancipation from repression. Reconstructing the dialectic of civilization(culture) in Marcuse's work Eros and Civilization : A Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, this paper aim to pursue present significance of the theory of revolution in the structure of instincts. Therefor I have summarized the following : 1) The relation between Marcuse's critical theory and Freudianism, 2) Marcuse's Freudian critique of civilization, 3) his expectation or vision of biological revolution, 4) the concrete, material contents of revolution in the structure of instinct. And then enumerated the problems of that revolution.

프랑크푸르트학파의 사회철학에서 문화비판

문현병 한국철학사상연구회 1995 시대와 철학 Vol.6 No.2

Croce의 歷史哲學

文顯丙 新羅大學校 1983 論文集 Vol.14 No.-

B. Croce(1866-1952), the best-known Italian philosoper of this century. He gained an international reputation in fields of aesthetics, literary criticism, cultural history, and historical methodolgy. In addition to Hegel the most powerful intellectual forces in his life were his countrymen Giambattista Vico and Francesco de Sanctis. Along with Hegel they represent Croce's three great interests : philosophy, history, and literature. And his intellectual development has been almost dialectical in the hegelian sense. The truth presumably lay in his own synthesis, his own philosophical history of historical philosophy, and this he expounded in a series of four volumes, which are all parts of a general work called Philosophy of Spirit, and they deal in order aesthetics, logic, economic and ethics, history. Croce is an idealist who believes that reality or the subject matter of our thinking is mind, life, or spirit. He is trying to say that we can only be sure of the existence of mental or spiritual activity and that any postulation of what he calls a transcendent entity is unjustified. After identifying spiritual activity as the subject-matter of philosophy Croce distinguishes between intellectual activity, whose two forms are intuition and abstraction, and practical activity, whose two forms are economic and ethical activity. Croce said that history is the concrete study of the spirit, of life, of human activity, and it employs all of the four forms to which we have just referred. It is therefore the grandest and deepest discipline of all and identical with philosophy itself. The true historian must understand evaluate the events he studies and in doing so he becomes a philosopher. In understanding and evaluating them he must re-enact them, relive them, in a way that leads Croce to say that all history is contemporary history. He draws a sharp distinction between the concepts of science and the concepts of philosophy. The concepts of philosophy are functions of thought, universal and necessary, on the contrary the concepts of science are arbitrary constructions. In this respect we are to consider the relation between history, science, and philosophy. Science Croce identifies with the generalising activity of the mind. History is the internal and individual understanding of an object into which the mind so enters that subject and object can be no longer separated. In the relation of philosophy and history(idealistic view), and philosophy is a component part of history (naturalistic view). Croce has thus vindicated the autonomy of history. History is philosophical history because it contains philosophy inside itself in the shape of predicated to its judgement. And within the concrete whole which is historical knowledge, philosophical knowledge is a component part. Consequently Croce defines philosophy as the methodology of history. Spite of his systematic theory and uniqueness he was criticized in many respects; the concept of history, his absolute idealism, dualism, a kind of philosophical suicide, etc.

Habermas에 있어서 解放의 意味

文顯丙 新羅大學校 1986 論文集 Vol.21 No.-

This study aims to illustrate the meaning of emancipation in Habermas`s thought. In order to construct an adequate model for critical social theory Habermas introduced the theory of cognitive interests which intrinsically connected with anthropologially deepseated systems of action. In them the emancipatory interest takes us to the center of Habermas`s thought. This emancipatory interest or interest in emancipation, according to Habermas, which is invested in the self-formative process of the species and penneates the movement of reflection, aims at realizing those conditions of symbolic interaction and instrumental action, and to this extent, it corresponds to or guides the critical and selfreflective sciences. In this way critical theory pursues self-reflection out of an interest in emancipation. Futhermore Habermas claims that ultimately a radicalized critique of knowledge can only be carried out in the form of a reconstruction of the history of the species. Thus Habermas wanted to reconstruct the historical materialism. Habermas organizes his discussion of historical materialism around two basic concepts-and two basic assumptions-the theory of base and superstructure and the dialectic of forces and relations of production. But through his analysis of society Habermas supposes that all previous history has been a history of distorted communication. Such a claim ultimately only be justified through a general theory of language, a theory of language which would have to be a theory of undistorted as well as of distorted communication. In this respect Habermas established the theory of communicative competence and universal pragmatics. The task of universal pragmatics is to identifiy and reconstruct universal conditions of possible understanding. With the achievement of that task Habermas presents an ideal speech situation which could make possible mutually validity claims. In spite of such a project of Habermas, however, his critical theory has some problems which fundamentally to be criticized.