(from elsewhere) (in response to a book list)
—“What on earth did I just read, why does it have basically nothing to do with the actual list (most of the books are critical theory? Dafuq?) and since when does Curt Doolittle follow this page?”—
(I collect book lists, for use in comparison of underlying assumptions (biases, priors) and someone forwarded it to me, so I followed your page.)
Critical theory rests on an extension of the assumption of the Rousseauian vision of man as oppressed, and offers a criticism of western civilization from that assumption.
All works of historical reference can be divided by the assumptions of the authors notion of mans nature and the possibility of action.
These assumptions can be categorized as the fallen angel vs risen beast; or dionysian vs apollonian; or Whig History vs Rousseauian; or Critical Theory vs Western Heroic Tradition; dysgenic advocacy vs Eugenic advocacy; or any other variation on the theme.
In reviewing your list there are a disproportionate number of fallen angel, dionysian, rousseauian, critical theorist, dysgenicist works.
From what I can gather, it appears that the sentimental bias of this group is optimistic and romantic in the literary continental enlightenment tradition, and preserving individualism.
We can work with meaning, method of argument, persuasion or discourse, or the underlying assumptions that meaning and method rely upon. By weighing the choices in the book list it’s rather obvious that the assumtpions, meaning, and method, are what they are.
This form of ‘survey’ is usually the most objective method of determining the political, moral, ethical, and personal biases of individuals and groups.
You probably don’t care but if someone finds this level of discourse interesting, its always worth a few words.
Why is it that of available books, one chooses the books one does?
(Its fascinating actually. because we self report very differently than we demonstrate.)
-Cheers
Source date (UTC): 2017-03-11 14:35:00 UTC
Leave a Reply