Talk:Critique of Dialectical Reason

Good a place as any

I have the work and have begun reading it and rereading Search. I haven't found any decent summary of the work anywhere, or even a bad one (this here being a stub sofar), so will try to fill this out here if I can find the time to do so. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a book-length Commentary on CDR (Vol. I) by Joseph S. Catalano, available at amazon. There is also a similar commentary by Ronald Aronson for Vol. II. Two psychiatrists, David Cooper & Ronald Laing, put out a book in 1964 called Reason & Violence: A Decade of Sartre's Thought, which includes summaries of Search and CDR, neither of which had been translated into English at the time. (CDR is basically the "blueprint" for what became known as the "anti-psychiatry" movement of the 60s and early 70s.) 138.162.128.54 (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The plan would be to follow the outline of the Sheridan-Smith translation, which is original to it as Sarte didn't supply such structure. After getting it, I will likely be dismissive of the second volume based on current information as well as the fact that SFAIK it addresses a historical condition (Stalinism) that is of little interest now. There's also the fact of Sartre's deterioration due to amphetamines and health issues, the sum of these making the first volume in essence the part of the work of any significant value. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, after placing the talkheader, I realized it would be better to develop the article in my own space. Lycurgus (talk) 13:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Put a little more into it, removed tag I placed. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Kolakowski

I think Kolakowski's comments should be less central. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.135.115 (talk) 06:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Why, and what would you suggest as an alternative? Wikipedia articles need to be based primarily on secondary sources. Kolakowski's book on Marxism is a perfectly good secondary source. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 06:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree that Kolakowski's criticisms should not make up as large a part of this article. Kolakowski wrote a criticism, not a neutral explanation of the text. That said, I'm not for removing anything. We should not try to balance a short article by taking out content. We should add other content.--Bkwillwm (talk) 20:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Please do not "split out" summary and criticism. That creates a completely artificial distinction that doesn't exist in Kolakowski's text, which is equally summary and criticism. Adding new sourced material to balance out Kolakowski's negative view of the Critique would be helpful, but the arbitrary reorganization of material, the unnecessary renamings, and the adding of "warning" tags that you've done here lately are not. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the reorganization is arbitrary. It doesn't matter if Kolakowski organized his work that way. The summary/criticism break down is typical of Wikipedia articles. Basing this article's organization on Kolakowski's is just further undue weight. Please do not remove warning tags without consensus. Both the anon editor above and I find that the current version of the article gives undue weight to Kolakowski, so I think the tags are warranted. Reader's who are new to the Critique should be warned that this text is based on one person's critical perspective until other sources can be added.--Bkwillwm (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

What on earth do you mean that it doesn't matter that Kolakowski organized his material that way? Of course it matters. We have to respect the sources we use. Saying that "the summary/criticism break down is typical of Wikipedia articles" is completely meaningless - just what articles do you have in mind, exactly? Could you find even a single article about a book organized in precisely the way you think this one should be? Adding tags is just a lazy approach to editing articles - go find a positive source and add it if you are so inclined. The tag is nothing but a badge of shame, and it doesn't improve the article in any way whatever. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

The Kolakowski reference consists of less than two pages in an overview of "currents" in Marxist thought. He is looking at the Critique in a very specific context (its place in Marxist thought), and Kolakowski isn't concerned with providing a summary or any other detached view of the Critique's content. Moreover, I don't think this brief mention qualifies Kolakowski as an authoritative source. I have no idea why Kolakowski's brief mention of the Critique (less than 2 pages of a 1200+ page work) should guide the structure of this article. Other Wikipedia articles, Eichmann in Jerusalem, A Theory of Justice, and Anarchy, State, and Utopia all have a summary(overview)/criticism breakdown similar to what I'm suggesting. Many other philosophy articles have a "reception" or "influence" section. By the way, I am not concerned about "positive" vs. "negative" sources. I am concerned that most of the article is based on a source focused on the role of this work in Marxist thought rather than its place in existentialism or in Sartre's corpus.

Posting tags is no more "lazy" than deleting them instead of addressing the issues. I have a few sources I will use to expand this article at some point, but nothing is stopping other editors from fixing the problems here.--Bkwillwm (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Irrelevant objections. The number of pages Kolakowski devotes to the Critique has no bearing how due or undue his remarks about it are for this article, nor does it have any relevance to how reliable or authoritative Kolakowski's comments are. It is also not a problem that he discusses it in the context of its place in Marxist thought - that's the most useful and valid way of discussing it, given that it's part of the history of Marxist thought. Kolakowski's discussion of the Critique isn't "guiding the structure of the article" - that's an imaginary problem. It is guiding the structure of one section only, and that's because it's the source used. I have taken a look at all three of the articles you mention, and not one is genuinely written in the same way that you tried to rewrite this article - taking a single source that is both a summary and a criticism of a book, and then artificially splitting it into separate "summary" and "criticism" sections. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 02:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I only said Kolawkowski was guiding the structure because you opposed a split between a summary and a criticism section based on the use of Kowlakowski as a source. I seem to have misunderstood you, now it sounds like you're opposed to using the same source in both a summary and criticism section. Using a source in multiple sections is completely standard in Wikipedia. Kolakowski is clearly being critical of CDR and his criticisms are discussed here. I think it's inappropriate to include these under a "Summary." It's POV to only include one critical source and call in a summary. I think we should implement one of the two edits I made: Either split the critical elements out into criticsm, or relabel the whole section as criticism. Aside from working with the current text, what do you want to do in the long run? Can I split out Kolakowski into a criticism section and develop a summary section from another source? Please do not remove templates. It's poor form. I understand you don't like having the templates there. Another user raised the issue, so it's not just me. I also tried to resolve the issue without templates, but you reverted those edits.--Bkwillwm (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that it's improper to use one source in different sections of an article - that's ascribing a view to me which I've never espoused. I simply fail to see any useful purpose to organizing the article into a "summary" and a "criticism" section. If you don't like the fact that the summary is critical, you're free to add sources taking a more positive view of the Critique, and make it more neutral that way. I do not agree with either of your suggestions for changing the article, and I reject also your suggestion that multiple templates are desirable: use of multiple templates when one should be quite enough is not necessary and can even be seen as borderline disruptive. Polisher of Cobwebs (talk) 04:35, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

2014 reworking of entry

I will be working more on this entry in the coming months, but have for the time being eliminated the reference in the introductory section, "Critique of Dialectical Reason has been seen as an abandonment of Sartre's original Existentialism" as that presents only one side of a many sided discussion that I have elaborated on in the Evaluation section. Regarding the background section, I have clarified the first part of it and eliminated the second part of the "Background" section as the references to Marleau-Ponty are fragmentary at best and don't make much sense. I have added the discussion re: B+N to the Evaluation section as well as some discussion to the role the work played in May 68 events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcimrman (talk • contribs) 03:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

You gave no real reason for removing the references to Merleau-Ponty. Saying that they "don't make much sense" is subjective, and not a valid grounds for removing them. I shall restore them. (Actually, considering the issue, I think the material on Merleau-Ponty is perhaps unclear and could be improved; but please don't just delete it outright). 122.60.173.222 (talk) 08:36, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

2015 edits

I removed the main paragraph of the summary section, replacing it with a paragraph intended to experiment with opening up this article to a more neutral presentation of the work which is based in the substance of the philosophy itself and not the political ramifications surrounding it. I want to avoid the "disguised spiritualism" which Sartre took pains to refrain from falling into, while still opening up the article to the rich substance of the philosophy where it concerns thought and being. Heading into the book with an understanding of the more "metaphysical" implications and intentions laid out in the introduction of the Critique will help balance out the overwhelming voice which roots this work in a political situation which, while critical to an understanding of the work, is only one of many facets of the philosophy itself. 2.english (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I find your edit problematic, 2.english. In principle, it may be a good idea to replace a summary based on Kołakowski's discussion of the book with a summary drawn from the book itself, but that is something it is difficult to do well. I think that, rather than removing Kołakowski altogether, it might be a better idea to try to base the summary section partly on Kołakowski's discussion of the Critique and partly on the Critique itself. I find that this mixed approach has worked well with other book articles. I do see problems with the text you added. Some of it reads awkwardly ("the subject matter of the Critique of Dialectical Reason functions in terms of Marxism") and needs to be improved on. Beyond that, while the added text is interesting, it does not make up for what you removed. You would have had a better case for removing the Kołakowski-based text if you had added material that conveyed the same information. I will give you a day or two to respond before considering reverting you. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I definitely agree with your criticism here. It did read awkwardly as you said. I'll try and improve this according to your suggestions. 2.english (talk) 15:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Scruton undue

Please provide a rationale for giving a whole paragraph of critique for a random British philosopher with no particular authority on existentialism. Scruton's POV isn't due any particular significance beyond him personally disliking Sartre for political reasons. 24.137.118.155 (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)