摘要
Setting out from the categories of totality and histori（ci）sm in Kosik＇s Dialectics of the Concrete, we look at the relationship between theory and praxis： empty, abstract totality versus concrete, reified and alienated practice （Lukacs, Habermas, Honneth）; a bad totality, in which the real polydimensional subject is replaced by the one-dimensional, mythologized, fetishized, and economistically reduced ＂subject＂ of consummation （Marcuse, Baudrillard）. The dialectics of concrete totality implies a marxistic critique of the ethical and juristic universalism, in the context of the ＂positive＂ side of globalization and political unilateralism, as a concrete, militant, hegemonistic, post-colonial, and neo-imperial practice （Apel, Habermas, Chomsky, Zinoviev）; globalization as totali（tari）zation, the ＂last man,＂ the ＂end of history,＂ and the ＂end＂ of dialectics in its neo-liberal, eschatological, empty ideological ＂realization＂ （Hegel, Marx, Fukuyama, Arendt）; the totality of the （invariable） being as a pseudo-concrete and pseudo-dialectical ontologistic speculation （Heidegger）： A ＂return＂ to a concrete history and a return of the ＂positive＂ dialectics as a critical awareness, mind, and method in the discourse ＂game＂ of human＇s cognitive, creative, and practical powers. The assumption of Kosik＇s humanism is a synchrony of nature and history in the ＂absolute＂ totality of human＇s concrete existence （Lukacs, Goldmann, Adorno, Sartre, Kosik）.
