- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Critical Theory Thread (proposed)
Posted on 6/8/20 at 8:42 am
Posted on 6/8/20 at 8:42 am
quote:
An approach based on critical theory calls into question the idea that “objectivity” is desirable, or even possible. The term used to describe this way of thinking about knowledge is that knowledge is socially constructed. When we refer to knowledge as socially constructed, we mean that knowledge is reflective of the values and interests of those who produce it. This term captures the understanding that all content and all means of knowledge are connected to social context.
James Lindsay, New Discourses
This probably won't get off the ground, but IMO we are due for a running thread where we can discuss this stuff. The masks are off and we're seeing it more and more. I'm increasingly convinced that you cannot understand what is happening around us without understanding what the critical theorists are pushing.
Examples:
- NYT pushing out an editor for publishing an op-ed of a real policy proposal in DC, and the subsequent discussion of how "objectivity" in journalism is antiquated and a form of white supremacy.
- Critical race theory as reflected in the Black Lives Matter movement and supporting organizations. Specifically the concept of racism going from something relatively concrete to something unavoidable that cannot be shed (See White Fragility) and the idea that you can't "simply be non-racist" but instead must be actively anti-racist and carry all of the socialist baggage that comes with it.
- Police dismantling/defunding. "Dismantle" is terminology straight from the CT playbook. Tear down a source of traditional western authority and replace it with some community policing body that sounds straight out of the Reign of Terror.
Some resources:
- Various interviews (Joe Rogan, etc.) with CT skeptics, including Jordan Peterson, Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay, Helen Pluckrose, Bret Weinstein, Heather Heying
- James Lindsay has an encyclopedia that is very robust and growing at the New Discourses. He also has a good podcast and just did a lengthy critique of White Fragility.
Suggestions:
- No left-right/partisan stuff. Discussing leftists is unavoidable, but discrete policy preferences is missing the point, IMO.
- I think whether Trump is useful or harmful for those who want to fight CT/SJWs is a very valid discussion, and it'd be useful to be able to talk about that without people assuming you hate Trump or won't vote for him, etc.
Welcome any others.
This post was edited on 6/8/20 at 8:53 am
18
Posted on 6/8/20 at 8:48 am to Pettifogger
(no message)
This post was edited on 6/9/20 at 12:07 pm
Posted on 6/8/20 at 8:50 am to Pettifogger
champ.
please put in link and ref of quoted piece.
1. great.
2. you would need chicken to let you admin the thread.
my favorite example is Supreme court rulings.
Scalia went off on socially constructed tangents and TD acted like those opinions were really in the constitution.
it might be a good start to dredge up citizens united.
5-4 that companies have right to buy federal election campaigns because for some court purposes companies are persons.
so by extension they can own us federal elections.
please put in link and ref of quoted piece.
1. great.
2. you would need chicken to let you admin the thread.
my favorite example is Supreme court rulings.
Scalia went off on socially constructed tangents and TD acted like those opinions were really in the constitution.
it might be a good start to dredge up citizens united.
5-4 that companies have right to buy federal election campaigns because for some court purposes companies are persons.
so by extension they can own us federal elections.
Posted on 6/8/20 at 8:50 am to Pettifogger
post modernism deconstruction with a cute label and bow
"there is no truth, except what the next 200 pages of word soup claim"
"there is no truth, except what the next 200 pages of word soup claim"
Posted on 6/8/20 at 8:51 am to CelticDog
quote:
it might be a good start to dredge up citizens united.
5-4 that companies have right to buy federal election campaigns
a perfect example of subjective belief being "truth"
Posted on 6/8/20 at 8:52 am to Pettifogger
I like the concept. I think only very simple things can be objective. The more complex or unpredictable something is from a social or economic standpoint the more subjective any view will be
Posted on 6/8/20 at 8:52 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:That is a good summary of the general view.
post modernism deconstruction with a cute label and bow
"there is no truth, except what the next 200 pages of word soup claim"
Truth is what you perceive it to be.
Posted on 6/8/20 at 8:53 am to Pettifogger
Thomas Sowell - brilliant man - laid down the ultimate law on this, PF; once an individual CHOOSES a "First Principle" which is polar to those who find the chosen First Principle as without positive value (subjective choice), or worse, abhorrent and evil...then any an all argument between opposing individuals will not bring participants to any agreement...but will bring them further apart.
Conversation will be either 'preaching to the choir'...or calling out the opposition as delusional, or worse.
"Where there is no vision, my people die". A common Vision is essential to prevent "wailing and gnashing of teeth". And Vision is an ABSTRACT thing; essentially Subjective, as it were; and therein, virtually impossible to acquire. Chicken or the egg scenario.
Sorry for the cynicism.
Conversation will be either 'preaching to the choir'...or calling out the opposition as delusional, or worse.
"Where there is no vision, my people die". A common Vision is essential to prevent "wailing and gnashing of teeth". And Vision is an ABSTRACT thing; essentially Subjective, as it were; and therein, virtually impossible to acquire. Chicken or the egg scenario.
Sorry for the cynicism.
Posted on 6/8/20 at 8:53 am to SlowFlowPro
there is no truth, except what the next 200 pages of word soup claim"
pretty soon we do alternate parallel universes.
pretty soon we do alternate parallel universes.
Posted on 6/8/20 at 8:54 am to Powerman
quote:
The more complex or unpredictable something is from a social or economic standpoint the more subjective any view will be
I disagree. Certainly, it becomes more difficult to reach an objective truth, but that does not mean it is unavailable.
Posted on 6/8/20 at 8:56 am to HempHead
quote:
I disagree. Certainly, it becomes more difficult to reach an objective truth, but that does not mean it is unavailable.
Ah yes, but from some positivist perspective that CTers & postmodernists would outright deny
Posted on 6/8/20 at 8:58 am to Powerman
quote:
I like the concept. I think only very simple things can be objective. The more complex or unpredictable something is from a social or economic standpoint the more subjective any view will be
i understand the rhetoric but even if this is true, the implementation of this logic doesn't work b/c it's not even-handed
if there are no truths, then even that can't be true. there is no foundation for anything and no point in seeking knowledge/study of anything.
however, in the implementation of "Critical Theory", you don't see that paradigm. you see a side form and a demand for certain types of analysis, scholarship, and beliefs. it quickly becomes the very thing it claims not to be
you see the power of this deconstructivist philosophy easily with language. when words mean nothing, they can mean anything
Posted on 6/8/20 at 8:59 am to Pettifogger
I'm curious how much of the followers/adherents of CT do so out of an earnest belief in a total lack of objective truth, and how many use it as a means to attain power. I can slightly appreciate it from a philosophical perspective, but the implications are terrible to imagine.
Posted on 6/8/20 at 9:01 am to Pettifogger
I’m torn between the idea that debating such a ridiculous construct gives it credence we shouldn’t and recognizing its infestation in society requires we bring it into debate.
Posted on 6/8/20 at 9:02 am to Pettifogger
I think we all might want to decide if we are really watching the revolution unfold before our very eyes, or not, as a first principle. How did Hitler rise? How did the Reign of Terror happen? The fall of the Czar? And on and on...
IMO we are not watching a game... the simultaneous black Antifa unies popping up all over does not mean it’s a game. It means somebody is deadly serious.
IMO we are not watching a game... the simultaneous black Antifa unies popping up all over does not mean it’s a game. It means somebody is deadly serious.
This post was edited on 6/8/20 at 9:03 am
Posted on 6/8/20 at 9:05 am to HempHead
quote:
I'm curious how much of the followers/adherents of CT do so out of an earnest belief in a total lack of objective truth, and how many use it as a means to attain power. I can slightly appreciate it from a philosophical perspective, but the implications are terrible to imagine.
I think the trickle down and ulterior motives aspect of this is interesting.
I also think the concept of having to create a new game because you can't win the existing game is a useful way to look at it. From a grievance studies perspective, it has some appeal because there is a palatable argument that the system is rigged to favor those who created it (cis white men). That will resonate with people who aren't CT adherents (or at least don't know they are).
But the "system" being rigged requires you to do things like refute the usefulness of traditional notions of logic and science, which any reasonable person would believe to be genuinely objective. Of course, they don't agree with the "reasonable person" standard either.
Audre Lorde sums it up well IMO -
"“For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us temporarily to beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change."
Posted on 6/8/20 at 9:06 am to Pettifogger
quote:
the idea that “objectivity” is desirable, or even possible. ... all content and all means of knowledge are connected to social context.
This idea is all nonsense and profoundly flawed... the fact we have influencers in our world that have bought into this is extremely and fundamentally problematic.
I do not have the time or inclination to thoroughly refute this but I will summarize the flaw using the example that is often used to support this idiocy..
Three different people who are all blind stand around an elephant.. one touches the ear, second touches the leg and the 3rd touches the tail. Each is asked to describe the elephant based upon what they are touching (which represents their unique experience...)
This is often used as an (over simplified) example of the idea you have described. Each person's experience and subsequent description is true and accurate as far as it goes but is inherently limited therefore each their "objectivity" cannot be relied upon..
The problem is that it ignored the fact that there is the reality of an elephant that exists outside and separate from (objectivity..) the experience of each of the three people..
This post was edited on 6/8/20 at 9:10 am
Posted on 6/8/20 at 9:06 am to HempHead
quote:
I'm curious how much of the followers/adherents of CT do so out of an earnest belief in a total lack of objective truth, and how many use it as a means to attain power. I can slightly appreciate it from a philosophical perspective, but the implications are terrible to imagine.
just like with most things adopted by leftists
there is a small segment of true believers who are useful idiots performing the role of muppet with those seeking power pulling strings
Posted on 6/8/20 at 9:08 am to Pettifogger
Critical theory only needs three things.
From Horkheimer:
1) it must be explanatory
2) it must be practical
3) it must be normative
So it has to tell us what is wrong, how we fix what’s wrong and what the final goal is. Do not think that these need to make sense to us, though. They only need make sense to the people participating. Logic is done.
From Horkheimer:
1) it must be explanatory
2) it must be practical
3) it must be normative
So it has to tell us what is wrong, how we fix what’s wrong and what the final goal is. Do not think that these need to make sense to us, though. They only need make sense to the people participating. Logic is done.
Posted on 6/8/20 at 9:08 am to Turbeauxdog
This is why the political discourse in our current western world is so awful right now. The two sides don't even live in the same realities. Much less speak the same language.
One is based on upon facts that have been agreed upon in society since the renaissance. Facts, science, & logic.
The other new side is deconstructing all of these things to win a political argument to achieve power and "win"
One is based on upon facts that have been agreed upon in society since the renaissance. Facts, science, & logic.
The other new side is deconstructing all of these things to win a political argument to achieve power and "win"
Page 1 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News