Revision as of 01:34, 31 October 2017 editFreeknowledgecreator (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users179,107 edits →Lead: add← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:38, 31 October 2017 edit undoChas. Caltrop (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,794 editsm →Lead: A replyNext edit → | ||
Line 64: | Line 64: | ||
Chas. Caltrop, it is up to you to gain consensus to change the lead of this article. It is also your responsibility to ensure that your edits are factually accurate. For example, in edit you changed the text "Frankfurt theorists drew on the critical methods of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud" to "Synthesizing the investigation methods of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, critical theory proposes that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation". Not only was that not an improvement of style, it involves a change of meaning, and it is highly doubtful that it is strictly correct on a factual level. "Synthesizing the investigation methods" of Marx and Freud does ''not'' mean the same thing as "drew on the critical methods" of Marx and Freud. The former claim appears to be a vulgarization and distortion of the latter, and I doubt it is correct. ] (]) 01:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC) | Chas. Caltrop, it is up to you to gain consensus to change the lead of this article. It is also your responsibility to ensure that your edits are factually accurate. For example, in edit you changed the text "Frankfurt theorists drew on the critical methods of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud" to "Synthesizing the investigation methods of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, critical theory proposes that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation". Not only was that not an improvement of style, it involves a change of meaning, and it is highly doubtful that it is strictly correct on a factual level. "Synthesizing the investigation methods" of Marx and Freud does ''not'' mean the same thing as "drew on the critical methods" of Marx and Freud. The former claim appears to be a vulgarization and distortion of the latter, and I doubt it is correct. ] (]) 01:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC) | ||
;A reply | |||
Sure, if you say so. Thanks, for taking the bait . . . and waiting for that call to Edit War. | |||
] (]) 01:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:38, 31 October 2017
Other talk page banners | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
There seem to be a lot of factual errors here
I just read "A Very Short Introduction to Critical Theory" and thought I'd see what Misplaced Pages had to say. Before I had read very far I had to stop and add this comment as there seem to be important errors here.
First, I'm not convinced "critical theory" has two meanings as stated in the first paragraph and repeated under definitions. Critical theory was the term take by Frankfurt school theorists when they came to the USA to escape Hitler. Partly as a result of their being in the USA and partly as a result of their German books being translated into English a subsequent set of ideas influenced by them appeared in various other disciplines such as Literature, Cultural Studies, Sociology etc. This wiki article doesn't seem to recognise the relationship.
Second - in the second paragraph it claims there were initially five Frankfurt School theoreticians and then speaks of a "second generation" of Frankfurt School scholars - Jurgen Habermas is right, but Gyorgy Lukacs and Gramsci are wrong - these are if anything pre-Frankfurt school, not second generation.
Third - although there claims to be a reference to it - I'm sure a concern with base and superstructure is not a remaining Marxist philosophic concept in much contemporary critical theory, the whole point of critical theory is to focus on ideology, language, power and concepts rather than situate these upon some "base". Further what is a "social" base and superstructure? The term refers to an economic base and a social superstructure, the concept of a "social base" seem meaningless.
Fourth the idea that critical theorists are revisionists I can imagine being said by "orthodox" Marxists but surely classical Marxists are the original 19th century Marxists in particular Marx and Engels, so how could they be critical to a twentieth century theory? The ideal that Analytical Marxists are critical of them for being revisionist I would consider doubtful also - there aren't any references to this claim, and while I can see Analytical Marxists being critical of imprecise use of language I haven't read them using "name calling" terms like "revisionist" on anyone.
I haven't read any more of the article, I felt I had to stop and add these comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graceandpeace (talk • contribs) 08:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
This Article Does Not Make Any Sense
I am an intelligent, highly-educated person and I could not make heads nor tails of the content of this article. This paragraph, for example: "Postmodern critical research is also characterized by the crisis of representation, which rejects the idea that a researcher’s work is an “objective depiction of a stable other.” Instead, many postmodern scholars have adopted “alternatives that encourage reflection about the ‘politics and poetics’ of their work. In these accounts, the embodied, collaborative, dialogic, and improvisational aspects of qualitative research are clarified”.
What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.69.113.230 (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I agree--this article is a mess. Is the extensive discussion of the difference between literary critical theory and social critical theory necessary? Need it be so long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mics 777 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Added "technical" message
Added the technical template due to the writing style being completely opaque to non-experts in the subject. Judging from this talk page, a) I'm not alone and b) it's been like this since at least 2006. A couple of suggestions:
- Please focus on what critical theory is rather than what it aims to do. Take, for instance, the paragraph below, from the "Definition" section. This could describe virtually any modern worldview, except for those such as religious fundamentalism which reject most/all science.
The core concepts of critical theory are as follows:
- That critical social theory should be directed at the totality of society in its historical specificity (i.e. how it came to be configured at a specific point in time), and
- That critical theory should improve understanding of society by integrating all the major social sciences, including geography, economics, sociology, history, political science, anthropology, and psychology.
- Avoid references to other schools of thought where possible, and limit the amount of name-dropping. If I were to define Christianity or quantum physics, I would not do so by saying "Christianity evolved from the Ancient Hebrew religion under Mithraistic and Orphic influences" or "quantum physics is the result of classical physicists rejecting particular elements of that worldview, such as Niels Bohr, and arriving at detailed conclusions about chemistry and determinism". Please explain, for non-experts like myself, what critical theorists actually think and/or do, and not just which philosophers synthesized which branches of Marxism. Those things might belong in a "See also" section or a detailed history, but not in the lead and definition.
Lunaibis 18:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
- @Lunaibis: Agree. This article is confusing to people who have never taken a Sociology class. I have clarified your template and added another. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Lead
Chas. Caltrop, it is up to you to gain consensus to change the lead of this article. It is also your responsibility to ensure that your edits are factually accurate. For example, in this edit you changed the text "Frankfurt theorists drew on the critical methods of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud" to "Synthesizing the investigation methods of Karl Marx and Sigmund Freud, critical theory proposes that ideology is the principal obstacle to human liberation". Not only was that not an improvement of style, it involves a change of meaning, and it is highly doubtful that it is strictly correct on a factual level. "Synthesizing the investigation methods" of Marx and Freud does not mean the same thing as "drew on the critical methods" of Marx and Freud. The former claim appears to be a vulgarization and distortion of the latter, and I doubt it is correct. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 01:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
- A reply
Sure, if you say so. Thanks, for taking the bait . . . and waiting for that call to Edit War.
Chas. Caltrop (talk) 01:37, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
Categories:- C-Class sociology articles
- High-importance sociology articles
- Sociology articles needing attention
- C-Class Philosophy articles
- High-importance Philosophy articles
- C-Class social and political philosophy articles
- High-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- C-Class Continental philosophy articles
- High-importance Continental philosophy articles
- Continental philosophy task force articles
- Philosophy articles needing attention
- C-Class Human rights articles
- Mid-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- C-Class socialism articles
- Mid-importance socialism articles
- Socialism articles needing attention
- WikiProject Socialism articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- Politics articles needing attention
- WikiProject Politics articles