3 ms·

If you're confused about why the article is weird, look at the source. “Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philo

If you're confused about why the article is weird, look at the source. “Critical Theory” in the narrow sense designates several generations of German philosophers and social theorists in the Western European Marxist tradition known as the Frankfurt School. According to these theorists, a “critical” theory may be distinguished from a “traditional” theory according to a specific practical purpose: a theory is critical to the extent that it seeks human “emancipation from slavery” [0] In contrast, the fitness of a "traditional" theory is only related to its correct modeling of reality or it's usefulness in making accurate predictions (depending on your opinion of instrumentalism/scientific realism [1]). [0] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/ [1] https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/

yesenadam 9y ago
Well, that's not fair, in many ways. Using dictionary definitions to attempt to settle anything is well-known to be silly. This piece—which reads like a really bad student essay—is so awful for the reasons I stated in my other comment, nothing to do with it being critical theory or not. There are good writings within that, and awful writings without. Critical theory is philosophy, not science, so your dismissing it for not being science is just confused. (Scientific realism is an attitude towards science/scientific theories, not philosophy. Yes, philosophers write about it, but as philosophers of science.) Critical theory is generally political philosophy, so no wonder it's concerned with human freedom, 'emancipation from slavery', whatever whoever wrote that meant precisely, and such things. Marcuse, the philosopher/guru of the USA's 60s hippie cultural revolution, was Critical Theory. Read a potted version of what he stood for and it all sounds pretty sensible. A lot of it has just become totally mainstream. Erich Fromm is my favourite of these guys, my favourite psychologist still, writer of wonderful and inspiring books. In him the critical theorists' mix of Freud and Marx doesn't seem strange or weird. It just means they're very interested in both psychology and politics - life in the mind and in the world, everywhere. Critical theorists write about anything, whatever interests them. And usually they don't quote other writers constantly like this guy! But they're informed by a lot of the thinkers of the past. I was into Adorno for a while, but gave up. Too often deliberately obscure, although sometimes not, wrote some illuminating stuff. e.g. his essay on jazz, although ignorant and unfair, is pretty classic. Horkheimer I like more. They're all from the original Frankfurt School of critical theory; there are many later people who might be called critical theorists - e.g. Raymond Williams, of whom I've loved everything I've read.

yesenadam 9y ago

Well, that's not fair, in many ways. Using dictionary definitions to attempt to settle anything is well-known to be silly. This piece—which reads like a really bad student essay—is so awful for the reasons I stated in my other comment, nothing to do with it being critical theory or not. There are good writings within that, and awful writings without. Critical theory is philosophy, not science, so your dismissing it for not being science is just confused. (Scientific realism is an attitude towards science/scientific theories, not philosophy. Yes, philosophers write about it, but as philosophers of science.) Critical theory is generally political philosophy, so no wonder it's concerned with human freedom, 'emancipation from slavery', whatever whoever wrote that meant precisely, and such things. Marcuse, the philosopher/guru of the USA's 60s hippie cultural revolution, was Critical Theory. Read a potted version of what he stood for and it all sounds pretty sensible. A lot of it has just become totally mainstream. Erich Fromm is my favourite of these guys, my favourite psychologist still, writer of wonderful and inspiring books. In him the critical theorists' mix of Freud and Marx doesn't seem strange or weird. It just means they're very interested in both psychology and politics - life in the mind and in the world, everywhere. Critical theorists write about anything, whatever interests them. And usually they don't quote other writers constantly like this guy! But they're informed by a lot of the thinkers of the past. I was into Adorno for a while, but gave up. Too often deliberately obscure, although sometimes not, wrote some illuminating stuff. e.g. his essay on jazz, although ignorant and unfair, is pretty classic. Horkheimer I like more. They're all from the original Frankfurt School of critical theory; there are many later people who might be called critical theorists - e.g. Raymond Williams, of whom I've loved everything I've read.