The Old Language England, what have you done to make the speech My fathers used a stranger to my lips, An offence to the ear, a shackle on the tongue That would fit new thoughts to an abiding tune? Answer me now. The workshop where they wrought Stands idle, and thick dust covers their tools. The blue metal of streams, the copper and gold Seams in the wood are all unquarried; the leaves’ Intricate filigree falls, and who shall renew Its brisk pattern? When spring wakens the hearts Of the young children to sing, what song shall be theirs? - R.S. Thomas
A “What is” video with no actual definition. He says what it does, but not what it is. He calls it an “approach that makes things…” but not what the method of approach is.
@@Kaden_Smith242 Well, admittedly 'critical theory' is an umbrella term. There is a potpourri of methods and approaches running under that. Essentially it is however a method to shoot down ideas, values, practices you don't like by setting them into a bad light or making them look ridiculous.
@@metapolitikgedanken612 'critical theory' has baggage. So why use that term. Call it something else. Avoid terms that cause confusion. So what is really going on here?
Racial or gender or any other type of essentialism isn’t making “the way others see the world visible” it’s marginalizing any divergent perspectives from any of those groups in order to marginalize all but one perspective , postmodern neomarxism and intersectionality as a dividing system for only allowing two vs perspectives, parochial privileged folks defining reality for members of marginalized groups and accusing them of being in the dominant group if they aren’t good pets and agree with the totalitarian critical theorists It’s a justification for deconstructing, dismantling, and reimagining the entirety of Christian orthodoxy, Jesus, salvation, resurrection, and we’ll dismiss all of these ideas gradually through “conversations” meaning struggle seasons to arrive at the truth of critical theory until it eliminates every last component of Christian faith The fact that there are differences among, for example, third and fourth wave feminists is an erroneous point. Ultimately as applied critical theories converge, the older perspective will merely be dismissed as a part of hegemony. There is no intellectual or biblically best way to reconcile a dialectal materialist and ultimately Marxist perspective, which refuses to accept any attempt at complexing it’s oversimplified Marxist binary roots. It does not allow the separation of notions such as power and justice discreet from one another.
I, unfortunately, have to agree. I can't quite grasp how critical theory, especially from thinkers as debased and incoherent as Foucault, is any different from Horkheimer and the Frankfurt school. What is he talking about? Foucault's postmodernism seems to be very much just a succession of Horkheimer's critique of reason. How is that not firmly in the legacy of the Frankfurt school? The real problem I have with critical theory is that it pre-supposes a sort of cynical self-interest on the part of authors of texts under analysis. This then causes a more serious problem, especially when it comes to foundational religious or political texts. Since such texts are, throughout time and space, renegotiated by the people that appeal to them for praxis and practice, every renegotiation of the text must be laden by this self-same self-interested power restructuring motivation. It therefore imbues the text with identity politics, of a sort where we cannot trust the text, even after we've uncovered the sociological context that surrounded it. Since the authors must have (according to critical theory) been motivated by some form of power dynamics, sullying the information we can extract. Either from the position of oppressed and subjugated or oppressor and subjugator, nothing can be taken as factual, only as contextual. This, actually, would be okay, at least for the academic religious scholar, if it were not for the fact that the same set of pre-suppositions regarding the authors and former interpreters, must inevitably be applied to the self. The self, and any further analysis, must be suspect, as those motivations cannot be supposed to have died in some previous generation. Therefore, what is one's own scholarly work but yet another layer of power dynamics and restructuring for self-interest or the interest of some social group. Is there any such thing as literary analysis? Or is it all unavoidable propaganda, subject to the time and space of the critic?
Watkin's book actually addresses these exact concerns. He critiques and dismantles the totalizing tendencies of critical theory while not ignoring the fact that critical theory didn't come from nowhere.
@@BrianONeill-z4i, he doesn't keep critical theory; he dismantles it. He demonstrates how it is heretical while noting that its criticism of society is not baseless. Have you read the book?
@@ijiwarusensei89 ruclips.net/video/nsiSWjEfN-E/видео.html Here he is describing 'critical theory', then describing 'biblical critical theory', and then giving examples of the usefulness of 'biblical critical theory'. No use of the word 'heretical' in describing critical theory. Critical theory is portrayed as being very useful in understanding the world and the bible. No dismantling of critical theory, instead its being used and applied to the bible. Simple straightforward evidence from the man himself.
The Old Language
England, what have you done to make the speech
My fathers used a stranger to my lips,
An offence to the ear, a shackle on the tongue
That would fit new thoughts to an abiding tune?
Answer me now. The workshop where they wrought
Stands idle, and thick dust covers their tools.
The blue metal of streams, the copper and gold
Seams in the wood are all unquarried; the leaves’
Intricate filigree falls, and who shall renew
Its brisk pattern? When spring wakens the hearts
Of the young children to sing, what song shall be theirs?
- R.S. Thomas
A “What is” video with no actual definition. He says what it does, but not what it is. He calls it an “approach that makes things…” but not what the method of approach is.
That is what the book is for.
@@Chomper750 of course, I’m not talking about the book I’m talking about the video.
@@Chomper750 If the video is like this, telling someone to go read the book makes you look very foolish.
@@Kaden_Smith242 Well, admittedly 'critical theory' is an umbrella term. There is a potpourri of methods and approaches running under that. Essentially it is however a method to shoot down ideas, values, practices you don't like by setting them into a bad light or making them look ridiculous.
@@metapolitikgedanken612 'critical theory' has baggage. So why use that term. Call it something else. Avoid terms that cause confusion. So what is really going on here?
Racial or gender or any other type of essentialism isn’t making “the way others see the world visible” it’s marginalizing any divergent perspectives from any of those groups in order to marginalize all but one perspective , postmodern neomarxism and intersectionality as a dividing system for only allowing two vs perspectives, parochial privileged folks defining reality for members of marginalized groups and accusing them of being in the dominant group if they aren’t good pets and agree with the totalitarian critical theorists
It’s a justification for deconstructing, dismantling, and reimagining the entirety of Christian orthodoxy, Jesus, salvation, resurrection, and we’ll dismiss all of these ideas gradually through “conversations” meaning struggle seasons to arrive at the truth of critical theory until it eliminates every last component of Christian faith
The fact that there are differences among, for example, third and fourth wave feminists is an erroneous point. Ultimately as applied critical theories converge, the older perspective will merely be dismissed as a part of hegemony. There is no intellectual or biblically best way to reconcile a dialectal materialist and ultimately Marxist perspective, which refuses to accept any attempt at complexing it’s oversimplified Marxist binary roots. It does not allow the separation of notions such as power and justice discreet from one another.
I, unfortunately, have to agree. I can't quite grasp how critical theory, especially from thinkers as debased and incoherent as Foucault, is any different from Horkheimer and the Frankfurt school. What is he talking about? Foucault's postmodernism seems to be very much just a succession of Horkheimer's critique of reason. How is that not firmly in the legacy of the Frankfurt school? The real problem I have with critical theory is that it pre-supposes a sort of cynical self-interest on the part of authors of texts under analysis. This then causes a more serious problem, especially when it comes to foundational religious or political texts. Since such texts are, throughout time and space, renegotiated by the people that appeal to them for praxis and practice, every renegotiation of the text must be laden by this self-same self-interested power restructuring motivation. It therefore imbues the text with identity politics, of a sort where we cannot trust the text, even after we've uncovered the sociological context that surrounded it. Since the authors must have (according to critical theory) been motivated by some form of power dynamics, sullying the information we can extract. Either from the position of oppressed and subjugated or oppressor and subjugator, nothing can be taken as factual, only as contextual.
This, actually, would be okay, at least for the academic religious scholar, if it were not for the fact that the same set of pre-suppositions regarding the authors and former interpreters, must inevitably be applied to the self. The self, and any further analysis, must be suspect, as those motivations cannot be supposed to have died in some previous generation. Therefore, what is one's own scholarly work but yet another layer of power dynamics and restructuring for self-interest or the interest of some social group. Is there any such thing as literary analysis? Or is it all unavoidable propaganda, subject to the time and space of the critic?
Watkin's book actually addresses these exact concerns. He critiques and dismantles the totalizing tendencies of critical theory while not ignoring the fact that critical theory didn't come from nowhere.
@@ijiwarusensei89 "He critiques and dismantles the totalizing tendencies of critical theory while" still keeping critical theory
@@BrianONeill-z4i, he doesn't keep critical theory; he dismantles it. He demonstrates how it is heretical while noting that its criticism of society is not baseless. Have you read the book?
@@ijiwarusensei89 ruclips.net/video/nsiSWjEfN-E/видео.html Here he is describing 'critical theory', then describing 'biblical critical theory', and then giving examples of the usefulness of 'biblical critical theory'. No use of the word 'heretical' in describing critical theory. Critical theory is portrayed as being very useful in understanding the world and the bible. No dismantling of critical theory, instead its being used and applied to the bible. Simple straightforward evidence from the man himself.