reyty2 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Thanks for your comments.

decorao (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Well the comments are fucked up or something so I can only see your one comment. Fortunately though I was able to read your others before they disappeared.

decorao (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

So the critical theorist only starts with an assumption inasmuch as he or she starts with the idea that traditional (for lack of a better word) theories have failed us and that postmodern theory seems like a potentially useful tool for improvement. I completely agree with you that falsifiability is utterly important, and I think my definition of critical theory produces ideas that are very falsifiable. Marcuse or Adorno do not seem to fit within this definition of critical theory, though.

decorao (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I wouldnt say that critical theory starts with an assumption of equality; I believe it starts with a mission of equality. The central assumption of the critical theorist is that complete social equality is a worthwhile goal. This is less like an assumption and more like a hypothesis based on empirical evidence. Simply put, centuries and centuries of history suggest that discourses that claim to be rooted in objectivity have failed to improve peoples condition.

JohananRaatz (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

"I know, it's hard to swallow." That's because it's illogical. Look at Marcuse with his liberating tolerance for example.He didn't want to reason with people like me to discover the truth he wanted to shut me up.Adorno is a little less bad.He only wanted to label anyone who disagreed as having a psychological disorder.Then there's Gramsci-the piece of shit who wanted to ruin western civilization social institutions and Christianity. Mussolini should have had him shot while he had the chance.