Abolish Critical Theory?
The ideaology has ultimately bred antiscience, anti-rationality, and absurd bigotry under the guise of anti-bigotry. "ciritcal race theory" for instance is embodied in a course called "abolish whiteness".
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
🙄
Does that mean we are going to be consistent and throw out everything that spun stupid ideas? Because if we are going to do that... I'm not sure if there will be a lot of stuff left to study 🙄
Does that mean we are going to be consistent and throw out everything that spun stupid ideas? Because if we are going to do that... I'm not sure if there will be a lot of stuff left to study 🙄
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@AgapeLove
<- It's a "philosophical" approach. Most of these people first dwell in the philosophical, social scientists then use these ideas to measure if the philosophy is sound. If the philosophy and the data gathered come up with a measurement of "validity" , then what's wrong with that?
<- Why? And why do we jump from "marxism" to "communism"? Because you use two broad terms there, that are used diffrently by diffrent actors in diffrent places.
I also don't think you can say that critical theory by defenition favors communism. You can say that marxists have helped build critical theory, you might even say that a lot of marxists have used critical theory. However, there is a diffrence with seeing, researching and establishing that there is a correlation/connection between diffrent aspects which can cause "problems" (depending on the defenition that you use) in a society, and the suggestion of a marxist-answer (or a move to communism). Which was pretty much Marx his problem too. These people just annalyse stuff, and some of them favor socialist/communist answers to the problems they perceive to be there.
<- Sociology has probably one of the biggest issues with "methodology" in all the sciences. Just because measuring something inside humanity is so tricky to do. They still form "hypothesis" -> "Methodology" -> "Measurement" -> "Result". They still work with the scientific method? It's not like creationism or something? Where do you get this stuff annyway?
"a philosophical approach to culture, and especially to literature, that seeks to confront the social, historical, and ideological forces and structures that produce and constrain it. The term is applied particularly to the work of the Frankfurt School."
<- It's a "philosophical" approach. Most of these people first dwell in the philosophical, social scientists then use these ideas to measure if the philosophy is sound. If the philosophy and the data gathered come up with a measurement of "validity" , then what's wrong with that?
you know what this definition leaves out is the fact that it was specifically constructed to interpret things in a light tht favors communism.
<- Why? And why do we jump from "marxism" to "communism"? Because you use two broad terms there, that are used diffrently by diffrent actors in diffrent places.
I also don't think you can say that critical theory by defenition favors communism. You can say that marxists have helped build critical theory, you might even say that a lot of marxists have used critical theory. However, there is a diffrence with seeing, researching and establishing that there is a correlation/connection between diffrent aspects which can cause "problems" (depending on the defenition that you use) in a society, and the suggestion of a marxist-answer (or a move to communism). Which was pretty much Marx his problem too. These people just annalyse stuff, and some of them favor socialist/communist answers to the problems they perceive to be there.
The social sciences are not bad (well, not all at least), but the fact that the critical theorists use them for the sake of figuring out how to justify their beliefs instead of find out what you believe, shows that they are thinking like lawyers and not scientists.
<- Sociology has probably one of the biggest issues with "methodology" in all the sciences. Just because measuring something inside humanity is so tricky to do. They still form "hypothesis" -> "Methodology" -> "Measurement" -> "Result". They still work with the scientific method? It's not like creationism or something? Where do you get this stuff annyway?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@AgapeLove
Your original point is: "Abolish critical theory?"
And then I asked you why, and got the responds that it's "stupid".
So I ask you why it's stupid, and you define it by defining the word using the dictionairy and put some critical remarks in there. And you end that part of your post with:
So I don't know what to think of this. I agree (even in it's simplicity) with your dictionairy defenition. But even the dictionairy talks about "philosophy". "Critical Thinking" is first and foremost something that belongs in the philosophical sphere.
Then the social sciences can investigate if these ideas are valid. And they have to do this with methodology. This methodology, is ussually really strict, and even after measurement (if you have an honest sociologist) you get 2 endings of the study. The first ending is an objective look at the results of what is measured, the second part is a biased (personal) reflection on the study with hints of what people should investigate to see if the researchers bias holds up. Because these studies are ussually really complex.
The terms: "Marxism and Communism" are only not broad if you define them. I'm not sure if you read political posts out here, but these terms pop up as "buzzwords" a lot, and most people have either no clue what they mean and give meaning to them or talk about a specific branch in marxis or communism. Because these terms harbor a lot of diffrent thinkers with diffrent opinion that put emphasis and revisions in diffrent areas. They are not monoliths, but if you use them right they have a similair theme.
So your problem is not with critical theory, but your problem is with activism. Then why bash critical theory?
Because you don't make sense. Your problem is with activists, people that take a view, and structure their "research" in that way that the research point out that their bias was right.
Sociology uses the scientific method. They first formulate a "hypothesis" then formulate a methodology on how to research the hypothesis. Then they measure according to the methodology, then they reach a result and formulate a conclussion.
Creationists take the bible, and work from there. They already see a hypothesis: "is the bible valid?" as being "true". A sociologist can't do that if (s)he wants to work within the scientific method and be open for scrutiny during peer review. That's the diffrence in doing science and strengthening bias.
Your original point is: "Abolish critical theory?"
And then I asked you why, and got the responds that it's "stupid".
So I ask you why it's stupid, and you define it by defining the word using the dictionairy and put some critical remarks in there. And you end that part of your post with:
The social sciences are not bad (well, not all at least), but the fact that the critical theorists use them for the sake of figuring out how to justify their beliefs instead of find out what you believe, shows that they are thinking like lawyers and not scientists.
So I don't know what to think of this. I agree (even in it's simplicity) with your dictionairy defenition. But even the dictionairy talks about "philosophy". "Critical Thinking" is first and foremost something that belongs in the philosophical sphere.
Then the social sciences can investigate if these ideas are valid. And they have to do this with methodology. This methodology, is ussually really strict, and even after measurement (if you have an honest sociologist) you get 2 endings of the study. The first ending is an objective look at the results of what is measured, the second part is a biased (personal) reflection on the study with hints of what people should investigate to see if the researchers bias holds up. Because these studies are ussually really complex.
The terms: "Marxism and Communism" are only not broad if you define them. I'm not sure if you read political posts out here, but these terms pop up as "buzzwords" a lot, and most people have either no clue what they mean and give meaning to them or talk about a specific branch in marxis or communism. Because these terms harbor a lot of diffrent thinkers with diffrent opinion that put emphasis and revisions in diffrent areas. They are not monoliths, but if you use them right they have a similair theme.
Now, why is this definition problematic? Because it tell you fuck all. It tells you that traditional theory is figuring out how something works, and critical theory is an approach where you find out how to change it, but not what to change it to. The answer of what to change it to? Well, if you know the history of the Frankfurt school, the answer is communism, as they were a bunch of neo-Marxists who wanted to figure a way to prep society to embrace communism since it failed the first time, which was totally the fault of factors other than communism, and the people who would subscribe to that totally aren't dogmatic ideologues.
So your problem is not with critical theory, but your problem is with activism. Then why bash critical theory?
No disrespect, but I have no got damn clue as to what any of this shit you typed past the first sentence means in respect to anything else. How did you get to creationism?
Because you don't make sense. Your problem is with activists, people that take a view, and structure their "research" in that way that the research point out that their bias was right.
Sociology uses the scientific method. They first formulate a "hypothesis" then formulate a methodology on how to research the hypothesis. Then they measure according to the methodology, then they reach a result and formulate a conclussion.
Creationists take the bible, and work from there. They already see a hypothesis: "is the bible valid?" as being "true". A sociologist can't do that if (s)he wants to work within the scientific method and be open for scrutiny during peer review. That's the diffrence in doing science and strengthening bias.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@AgapeLove Man you are a squirmer.
If a defenition is meaningless to you, then don't give it. That's like a rule in a discussion. If you define the thing you want to talk about, then don't use defenitions that you believe are incorrect.
I however don't agree with your interpretation of things. I agree with the dictionairy (as I said) even tough it's a simple interpretation without much depth it still gives you an idea what it's about.
I don't know where your own defenition is. But if it's that paranoid stuff about critical theory all leading to communism, then I'm honestly in heavy disagreement with it. If it's the other defenition that you give:
<- Then I kinda disagree with it. This idea is more problematic then the dictionairy explenation. And when you give things that you find, then provide the sources. The only part where I can find this thing is on this website: https://www.thoughtco.com/critical-theory-3026623
This is apperently written by a PhD, that provides 0 (absolutely none) sources? And also talks as if Antonio Gramsci helped to get the Frankfurter School in place? Or aided it's ascendence? While the Frankfurt School got it's momentum in halfway the 1930s, most of the guy had to flee from the NAZIs, and Gramsci was imprisoned in 1926 (I believe). Most of Gramscis writings only gained importance in the 1950s after the war, and it started in Italy and slowly went on towards other places. In other words... this source is problematic for diffrent reasons. I don't get it why a PhD. would put his/her name under a piece like this.
And because you fall into this paranoid framework we get this as an example:
This example already happened, but it's not scientific.
Critical theory has a "philosophical part" but it can still be tested in the field. Something social scientists have been doing for a long while now. National Socialist claims were also introduced in schools, but it stayed with philosophy because the science was falsified. You should read up on the stuff the NAZI party actually did to make their claims credible, it's pretty excessive but none of it is science.
This is also not how critical theory works. It looks at power dynamics of social structures on groups and individuals. Instead of wishy washy defenitions that you sometimes don't even like and then just say them and break them down a bit later on. Why not read up on it?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/
https://www.iep.utm.edu/frankfur/#SH2a
And you can even find it on wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
And on the wikipedia page on criticisms' of critical theory you find:
"Critical theory has been criticized for not offering any clear road map to political action following critique, often explicitly repudiating any solutions (such as with Herbert Marcuse's concept of "the Great Refusal", which promoted abstaining from engaging in active political change)."
Not all critical theorists are Marxists. Neither does critical theory point to marxism. Critical Theory only researches these dynamics and what the consequences of these dynamics are. It's "activism" that provides an answer to the perceived problem. It's not critical theory that just goes: "well according to our results we should all become communists.". That's not how it works. But it does work that way in the paranoid dark places of the internet. The same places where you can read up on the snowflake-generation and where post-modernism is an undefined evil and Marx his greatest work is the "communist manifesto". In those fucked up places, you can find bullshit like the one that is flowing from your keyboard right now. But if you start looking into it, you are just wrong.
However, dictionaries are not infallible. If you know the history of it (and I suspect you might, because you do seem educated), you know what this definition leaves out is the fact that it was specifically constructed to interpret things in a light tht favors communism.
I don't know what to think of it either, because I told you that the dictionary definition is basically meaningless and tells you nothing about what it is or why it exists. You ignore that and tell me i'm defining it using the definition even tho I posted the definition to show you how nebulous and useless it is, and if that weren't enough I even gave my own definition.
If a defenition is meaningless to you, then don't give it. That's like a rule in a discussion. If you define the thing you want to talk about, then don't use defenitions that you believe are incorrect.
I however don't agree with your interpretation of things. I agree with the dictionairy (as I said) even tough it's a simple interpretation without much depth it still gives you an idea what it's about.
I don't know where your own defenition is. But if it's that paranoid stuff about critical theory all leading to communism, then I'm honestly in heavy disagreement with it. If it's the other defenition that you give:
"Critical theory is a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it"
<- Then I kinda disagree with it. This idea is more problematic then the dictionairy explenation. And when you give things that you find, then provide the sources. The only part where I can find this thing is on this website: https://www.thoughtco.com/critical-theory-3026623
This is apperently written by a PhD, that provides 0 (absolutely none) sources? And also talks as if Antonio Gramsci helped to get the Frankfurter School in place? Or aided it's ascendence? While the Frankfurt School got it's momentum in halfway the 1930s, most of the guy had to flee from the NAZIs, and Gramsci was imprisoned in 1926 (I believe). Most of Gramscis writings only gained importance in the 1950s after the war, and it started in Italy and slowly went on towards other places. In other words... this source is problematic for diffrent reasons. I don't get it why a PhD. would put his/her name under a piece like this.
And because you fall into this paranoid framework we get this as an example:
Okay, Imagine if Neo-Nazis got together and invented a methodology with the intent to change society into a national socialist's utopia where minorities have no rights. Then, imagine if that philosophy invaded academia, but was defined officially as "a methodology which seeks to change society as opposed to just understand it" and then universities started having an increase in Nazi's as a direct result, with classes that said "how to abolish Judaism"?? Would you seriously be defending it, or nah?
This example already happened, but it's not scientific.
Critical theory has a "philosophical part" but it can still be tested in the field. Something social scientists have been doing for a long while now. National Socialist claims were also introduced in schools, but it stayed with philosophy because the science was falsified. You should read up on the stuff the NAZI party actually did to make their claims credible, it's pretty excessive but none of it is science.
This is also not how critical theory works. It looks at power dynamics of social structures on groups and individuals. Instead of wishy washy defenitions that you sometimes don't even like and then just say them and break them down a bit later on. Why not read up on it?
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/
https://www.iep.utm.edu/frankfur/#SH2a
And you can even find it on wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
And on the wikipedia page on criticisms' of critical theory you find:
"Critical theory has been criticized for not offering any clear road map to political action following critique, often explicitly repudiating any solutions (such as with Herbert Marcuse's concept of "the Great Refusal", which promoted abstaining from engaging in active political change)."
Not all critical theorists are Marxists. Neither does critical theory point to marxism. Critical Theory only researches these dynamics and what the consequences of these dynamics are. It's "activism" that provides an answer to the perceived problem. It's not critical theory that just goes: "well according to our results we should all become communists.". That's not how it works. But it does work that way in the paranoid dark places of the internet. The same places where you can read up on the snowflake-generation and where post-modernism is an undefined evil and Marx his greatest work is the "communist manifesto". In those fucked up places, you can find bullshit like the one that is flowing from your keyboard right now. But if you start looking into it, you are just wrong.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@AgapeLove
I don't fill in your ideas (as much as I possibly can).
And you don't fill in mine (as much as you possibly can).
Your main claim is: "Lets abolish critical theory?"
My point is, that you can't even provide a good defenition for it. The first thing you do is: "here is the dictionairy", but the dictionairy isn't "infallible". You don't say that the dictionairy failed, you just add: "you know what this definition leaves out is the fact that it was specifically constructed to interpret things in a light tht favors communism." ... This is your own addition. So from your earlier post, that's the definition I'm working with, I just don't acknowledge the personal add-on because it doesnt make sense. It's just something you squirm in there.
Then you copypasted that other thing, probably from the website I gave in my last post. But that defintion also doesn't make sense: "Critical theory is a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it". <- Where does this person even get the "change" part from. This person also thinks that a "traditional theory" doesnt work to change things. When a tradtional theorists comes up with the idea: "you should wash your hands before every surgery you perform". Does that idea not provide an incentive for "change"? Do traditional theories outcomes just bulk up in a library somewhere, and get ignored? Research by defenition is trying to understand things, and if you understand something to be flawed people have a incentive for change. "Traditional theory" also does that.
As the wikipedia page points out, critical theory doesnt even provide a framework for change. And they got that from IEP page that listed under the stanford dictionairy. And that page is also bulking with source material to read up on.
So I'm talking about definition... maybe because it's important when you talk about something? Maybe because it's a broad term used by diffrent thinkers over time and if you want to have a reasonable conversation about it, it's good that both people know what they are talking about? Maybe that's why a definition is important?
And why would what I have said have no "virtual relation to anything you said"? I post every piece of text you provide in quotes, and answer it afterwards.
"Hear myself type" when I'm providing you with a responds on toppic? Sure buddy, if that makes you feel better about your own ignorance, sure. 👬
Why would you even have a strong opinion? Why are you in this conversation? You tell me? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, so why are we even having it? You tell me buddy.
What do you think I think it means?
I don't fill in your ideas (as much as I possibly can).
Basically, you have a clear direction that you want to steer the conversation to, and specific talking point on critical theory which you already have made in your head.
And you don't fill in mine (as much as you possibly can).
the first half of your last comment was dedicated to the definition itself, which is damn near proof you give no fucks.
Your main claim is: "Lets abolish critical theory?"
My point is, that you can't even provide a good defenition for it. The first thing you do is: "here is the dictionairy", but the dictionairy isn't "infallible". You don't say that the dictionairy failed, you just add: "you know what this definition leaves out is the fact that it was specifically constructed to interpret things in a light tht favors communism." ... This is your own addition. So from your earlier post, that's the definition I'm working with, I just don't acknowledge the personal add-on because it doesnt make sense. It's just something you squirm in there.
Then you copypasted that other thing, probably from the website I gave in my last post. But that defintion also doesn't make sense: "Critical theory is a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole, in contrast to traditional theory oriented only to understanding or explaining it". <- Where does this person even get the "change" part from. This person also thinks that a "traditional theory" doesnt work to change things. When a tradtional theorists comes up with the idea: "you should wash your hands before every surgery you perform". Does that idea not provide an incentive for "change"? Do traditional theories outcomes just bulk up in a library somewhere, and get ignored? Research by defenition is trying to understand things, and if you understand something to be flawed people have a incentive for change. "Traditional theory" also does that.
As the wikipedia page points out, critical theory doesnt even provide a framework for change. And they got that from IEP page that listed under the stanford dictionairy. And that page is also bulking with source material to read up on.
the first half of your last comment was dedicated to the definition itself, which is damn near proof you give no fucks.
You say things that have virtually no relation to anything I said, just because you love to hear yourself type.
So I'm talking about definition... maybe because it's important when you talk about something? Maybe because it's a broad term used by diffrent thinkers over time and if you want to have a reasonable conversation about it, it's good that both people know what they are talking about? Maybe that's why a definition is important?
And why would what I have said have no "virtual relation to anything you said"? I post every piece of text you provide in quotes, and answer it afterwards.
"Hear myself type" when I'm providing you with a responds on toppic? Sure buddy, if that makes you feel better about your own ignorance, sure. 👬
why would I want to be a part of that convo?
Why would you even have a strong opinion? Why are you in this conversation? You tell me? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about, so why are we even having it? You tell me buddy.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Kwek00 · 41-45, M
@AgapeLove
An action towards "what"? You have failed to provide anny consistent idea that we should "act" towards. Since you can't establish what "critical theory" is.
BTW, I agreed with the dictionairy definition a long time ago even though it's narrow, it provides an understanding of what critical theory is.
So it's a call for action towards ambiguity? That sounds really healthy. Let's see how that turns out.
🙄 This is another point that doesn't make sense. How would the two defenitions you gave (something we still haven't established btw) "techincally" support the idea that it promotes "capitalism"?
...That's not a claim, it's a call to action 🙄
An action towards "what"? You have failed to provide anny consistent idea that we should "act" towards. Since you can't establish what "critical theory" is.
BTW, I agreed with the dictionairy definition a long time ago even though it's narrow, it provides an understanding of what critical theory is.
And my point, which you've continually missed, is that there IS NOT a good definition for it.
So it's a call for action towards ambiguity? That sounds really healthy. Let's see how that turns out.
The scientific method has a goal and critical theory has a goal, and if you said the goal of critical theory was to promote capitalism, you would be wrong as fuck, but technically not wrong by those two definitions I gave.
🙄 This is another point that doesn't make sense. How would the two defenitions you gave (something we still haven't established btw) "techincally" support the idea that it promotes "capitalism"?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment