4 ms·

> given that he is one of the most studied critical theorists in philosophy and literature Found your problem.

by bordercases 7y ago

claudiawerner 7y ago
I'll bite: what problem is that?
- bordercases 7y ago
  Critical theorists aren't worth studying. They have no consistent norms of evaluating the quality of their work and their primary purpose is to advance literary explorations over calibration to any particular truth of the matter. So saying a critical theorist is well-studied by other critical theorists says very little about the value of their positions to non-literary fields. There may have been a fact of the matter as to whether Walter Benjamin really was an inspiration for post-modernism or if he's merely confined to modernism, but I think a true critical theorist would leave that up to debate.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    The description of someone who learnt about critical theorists from YouTube videos (and I use the term "learnt" loosely).
  - claudiawerner 7y ago
    >They have no consistent norms of evaluating the quality of their work and their primary purpose is to advance literary explorations over calibration to any particular truth of the matter. This is patently false if you read any critical theory, in which reaching the truth on a matter is taken much more seriously than any literary aim. You can claim that mainstream critical theory didn't or isn't reaching the truth, but it's a wild claim to say it makes no attempt to do so. Read the Wikipedia article if you don't believe me. >So saying a critical theorist is well-studied by other critical theorists Critical theorists are studied and used by philosophers, legal scholars, and sociologists - it's not only critical theorists in some kind of secret club where they all congratulate each other. They are studied in literary fields not because of the literary value of their writing, but because of their criticism and aesthetic positions. >but I think a true critical theorist would leave that up to debate. They wouldn't, because critical theorists can recognize the truth and falsity of claims. Your criticism would be better aimed at the so-called postmodernists (and it'd still be wrong).
    - bordercases 7y ago
      > They are studied in literary fields not because of the literary value of their writing, but because of their criticism and aesthetic positions. That's pretty hard to distinguish from "just" literature; of course not all literature is fictional or journalistic. But neither criticism nor aesthetics are particularly bounded in their ability to make negative or positive claims due to the flexibility of interpretation of background assumptions that both pancritical + justificationist disciplines rely on. It's inherently subversive of any central and stabilizing intellectual tendency and I think most critical theorists admit their goals as being such. This is why I doubt the claim that there is a central truth that critical theorists are attempting to discover when their methods are designed to be as disputative or ambiguating as possible. Even if we're in a position where no assumption can be taken for granted in the end, productive operational work (in science in policy or otherwise) always has to maintain some initial set of working goals and assumptions to guide and rationalize action, and perform interventions which can maximally orient the institution towards further action. Subversiveness stalls except in how it wants to prevent such institutions from prolonging themselves. > Critical theorists are studied and used by philosophers, legal scholars, and sociologists Are they all trained out of the Frankfurt school by any chance? Yes they're sometimes worth responding to, no they're not worth taking seriously except as a means to an end. > They wouldn't, because critical theorists can recognize the truth and falsity of claims. Your criticism would be better aimed at the so-called postmodernists (and it'd still be wrong). I am earnestly interested in learning more about non-postmodern critical theorists. The pragmatists of the freshwater school (Sellars and Brandom mainly) are the only people on the top of my head that sing that note due to the way they deal seriously with the problem of interpretation in foundations and the way they want to internalize Hegel, while still having the aims of scientific inquiry in mind. But that's analytic philosophy assimilating continental philosophy rather than the other way around, which I'm more sympathetic to precisely because analytics tend to want to bound critique rather than produce more critique for its own sake (i.e. subversion as an ends).
      - claudiawerner 7y ago
        >It's inherently subversive of any central and stabilizing intellectual tendency and I think most critical theorists admit their goals as being such. It's very hard for me to read that as anything but a good thing. It's one thing to say that critical theory has no value, but it's another thing to say its only value is subversion. Nevertheless, if what you're saying is true, then there is no better critic of critical theory than critical theory itself. There are central principles of critical theory (and Horkheimer wrote a whole book about it), and there are results produced by critical theory that the authors present as true (sociologists have taken up the concept of the culture industry and Marcuse's idea of one-dimensionality, for instance). I'm skeptical of the idea that CT is subversive of any tendency - no critical theorist repudiated empirical investigation, for instance. When they do criticize, they don't want to completely do away (Adorno had praise for the enlightenment project). Habermas has been one of the loudest voices against "postmodernism". > productive operational work (in science in policy or otherwise) always has to maintain some initial set of working goals and assumptions to guide and rationalize action That's true, but if critical theorists do not question these working goals and assumptions, and the very nature of instrumental reason, who will? It seems to make much more sense, for human emancipation and rationality, to examine what we take for granted and against what background we're working. "Maximally orienting towards further action" is precisely the uncritical approach CTs stand against, where in the same breath we guide the Ministry of War "maximally" towards "further action". >no they're not worth taking seriously except as a means to an end. Not only do professional philosophers of all stripes disagree, but career activists agree - a famous critical theorist (lowercase) once said that philosophers had hitherto only interpreted the world; the point is to change it. >the problem of interpretation in foundations and the way they want to internalize Hegel, while still having the aims of scientific inquiry in mind Scientific inquiry has many prerequisites, Hegel himself a harsh critic of pure empiricism. The difference in prerequisites is what gives rise to the Anglophone science and the German Wissenschaft.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
dang 7y ago
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- bordercases 7y ago
  Here's some learning: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22092985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22092985

> given that he is one of the most studied critical theorists in philosophy and literature Found your problem.

claudiawerner 7y ago

I'll bite: what problem is that?

bordercases 7y ago
Critical theorists aren't worth studying. They have no consistent norms of evaluating the quality of their work and their primary purpose is to advance literary explorations over calibration to any particular truth of the matter. So saying a critical theorist is well-studied by other critical theorists says very little about the value of their positions to non-literary fields. There may have been a fact of the matter as to whether Walter Benjamin really was an inspiration for post-modernism or if he's merely confined to modernism, but I think a true critical theorist would leave that up to debate.
- coldtea 7y ago
  The description of someone who learnt about critical theorists from YouTube videos (and I use the term "learnt" loosely).
- claudiawerner 7y ago
  >They have no consistent norms of evaluating the quality of their work and their primary purpose is to advance literary explorations over calibration to any particular truth of the matter. This is patently false if you read any critical theory, in which reaching the truth on a matter is taken much more seriously than any literary aim. You can claim that mainstream critical theory didn't or isn't reaching the truth, but it's a wild claim to say it makes no attempt to do so. Read the Wikipedia article if you don't believe me. >So saying a critical theorist is well-studied by other critical theorists Critical theorists are studied and used by philosophers, legal scholars, and sociologists - it's not only critical theorists in some kind of secret club where they all congratulate each other. They are studied in literary fields not because of the literary value of their writing, but because of their criticism and aesthetic positions. >but I think a true critical theorist would leave that up to debate. They wouldn't, because critical theorists can recognize the truth and falsity of claims. Your criticism would be better aimed at the so-called postmodernists (and it'd still be wrong).
  - bordercases 7y ago
    > They are studied in literary fields not because of the literary value of their writing, but because of their criticism and aesthetic positions. That's pretty hard to distinguish from "just" literature; of course not all literature is fictional or journalistic. But neither criticism nor aesthetics are particularly bounded in their ability to make negative or positive claims due to the flexibility of interpretation of background assumptions that both pancritical + justificationist disciplines rely on. It's inherently subversive of any central and stabilizing intellectual tendency and I think most critical theorists admit their goals as being such. This is why I doubt the claim that there is a central truth that critical theorists are attempting to discover when their methods are designed to be as disputative or ambiguating as possible. Even if we're in a position where no assumption can be taken for granted in the end, productive operational work (in science in policy or otherwise) always has to maintain some initial set of working goals and assumptions to guide and rationalize action, and perform interventions which can maximally orient the institution towards further action. Subversiveness stalls except in how it wants to prevent such institutions from prolonging themselves. > Critical theorists are studied and used by philosophers, legal scholars, and sociologists Are they all trained out of the Frankfurt school by any chance? Yes they're sometimes worth responding to, no they're not worth taking seriously except as a means to an end. > They wouldn't, because critical theorists can recognize the truth and falsity of claims. Your criticism would be better aimed at the so-called postmodernists (and it'd still be wrong). I am earnestly interested in learning more about non-postmodern critical theorists. The pragmatists of the freshwater school (Sellars and Brandom mainly) are the only people on the top of my head that sing that note due to the way they deal seriously with the problem of interpretation in foundations and the way they want to internalize Hegel, while still having the aims of scientific inquiry in mind. But that's analytic philosophy assimilating continental philosophy rather than the other way around, which I'm more sympathetic to precisely because analytics tend to want to bound critique rather than produce more critique for its own sake (i.e. subversion as an ends).
    - claudiawerner 7y ago
      >It's inherently subversive of any central and stabilizing intellectual tendency and I think most critical theorists admit their goals as being such. It's very hard for me to read that as anything but a good thing. It's one thing to say that critical theory has no value, but it's another thing to say its only value is subversion. Nevertheless, if what you're saying is true, then there is no better critic of critical theory than critical theory itself. There are central principles of critical theory (and Horkheimer wrote a whole book about it), and there are results produced by critical theory that the authors present as true (sociologists have taken up the concept of the culture industry and Marcuse's idea of one-dimensionality, for instance). I'm skeptical of the idea that CT is subversive of any tendency - no critical theorist repudiated empirical investigation, for instance. When they do criticize, they don't want to completely do away (Adorno had praise for the enlightenment project). Habermas has been one of the loudest voices against "postmodernism". > productive operational work (in science in policy or otherwise) always has to maintain some initial set of working goals and assumptions to guide and rationalize action That's true, but if critical theorists do not question these working goals and assumptions, and the very nature of instrumental reason, who will? It seems to make much more sense, for human emancipation and rationality, to examine what we take for granted and against what background we're working. "Maximally orienting towards further action" is precisely the uncritical approach CTs stand against, where in the same breath we guide the Ministry of War "maximally" towards "further action". >no they're not worth taking seriously except as a means to an end. Not only do professional philosophers of all stripes disagree, but career activists agree - a famous critical theorist (lowercase) once said that philosophers had hitherto only interpreted the world; the point is to change it. >the problem of interpretation in foundations and the way they want to internalize Hegel, while still having the aims of scientific inquiry in mind Scientific inquiry has many prerequisites, Hegel himself a harsh critic of pure empiricism. The difference in prerequisites is what gives rise to the Anglophone science and the German Wissenschaft.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

dang 7y ago

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

bordercases 7y ago
Here's some learning: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22092985 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22092985