Is Critical Analysis Just Fault-Finding?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alex_Sanders
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Reading
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the interpretation of critical analysis, particularly in the context of a reading comprehension question regarding essential qualities of a critique. Participants explore the nuances of what constitutes effective criticism and whether certain qualities are inherently necessary or mentioned in the original text.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that critical analysis should encompass original thinking and philosophical insight, while others question the necessity of these qualities.
  • There is a contention regarding the interpretation of the phrase "as a critique," with some suggesting it should be "in a critique" or "for a critique," leading to confusion about the intended meaning.
  • Several participants express differing opinions on which quality was not mentioned as essential by the author, with options including A (Enlightening and instructional), B (Original thinking), C (Matter-of-fact attitude), and D (Philosophical insight).
  • Some participants assert that a matter-of-fact attitude is necessary for a critique, while others argue it contradicts the need for creativity and original thought.
  • There are repeated claims that the correct answer to the question is D, but this is met with disagreement from others who believe C is the answer.
  • Participants discuss the implications of being a critic and the skills required, including the ability to convey ideas effectively and the role of factual knowledge in writing critiques.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on which quality was not mentioned as essential. Multiple competing views remain regarding the interpretation of the original text and the qualities of a critique.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved issues regarding the phrasing of the question and the definitions of the qualities discussed, which may affect participants' interpretations and conclusions.

  • #31
dipole said:
Everybody shut up and give me an equation dammit. :mad:

:smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
MarcoD said:
Personally, I still think there case for original thinking is still pretty weak. I mean 1), a novelist or playwright implies original thinking? It's more often effective use of style and themes, there are not a lot of original works. Or 3) a thinker who looks beyond his own field? Just reading the newspaper regularly doesn't make you an original thinker.
3.) definitely implies original thinking: thinking outside the paradigm of the subject at hand. "His subject" doesn't mean his field, it means the subject he is writing about. It says a good critic can connect whatever specific thing he's discussing to larger social, historical, and philosophical considerations, for example.
 
  • #33
MarcoD said:
Personally, I still think there case for original thinking is still pretty weak. I mean 1), a novelist or playwright implies original thinking? It's more often effective use of style and themes, there are not a lot of original works.

That's technically true, but you can still follow the formula and fail. You have to put things together in an original way sooner or later.

A large part of this is not being a textualist, though. Rather, it's guessing what the writer meant.
 

Similar threads

Death, Nothingness and Subjectivity
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
Are Kant, Freud, and Sartre Truly the Pillars of Unbelief?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K