Social Criticism, Moral Reasoning and the Literary Form

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Leonidas Tsilipakos
{"title":"Social Criticism, Moral Reasoning and the Literary Form","authors":"Leonidas Tsilipakos","doi":"10.15845/NWR.V7I2.3512","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Widely chosen by students of society as an approach under which to labour, emancipatory, liberatory or, otherwise put, critical social thought occupies a position between knowledge and practical action whose coherence is taken for granted on account of the pressing nature of the issues it attempts to deal with. As such it is rarely subjected to scrutiny and the methodological, conceptual and moral challenges it faces are not properly identified. The contribution of this article is to raise these problems into view clearly and unambiguously. This is undertaken via a careful examination of Alice Crary’s recent work, in which she attempts, firstly, to defend a left-Hegelian version of Critical Theory by relating it to the work of Peter Winch and, second, to issue a set of methodologically radical recommendations on employing the sensibility-shaping powers of the literary form. The article aims to deepen our understanding of the fundamental tensions between the Critical Theory and Wittgensteinian traditions, which Crary attempts to bring together and, ultimately, of those crucial features of our moral practices that frustrate the enterprise of critical social thought.","PeriodicalId":31828,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Wittgenstein Review","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic Wittgenstein Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15845/NWR.V7I2.3512","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Widely chosen by students of society as an approach under which to labour, emancipatory, liberatory or, otherwise put, critical social thought occupies a position between knowledge and practical action whose coherence is taken for granted on account of the pressing nature of the issues it attempts to deal with. As such it is rarely subjected to scrutiny and the methodological, conceptual and moral challenges it faces are not properly identified. The contribution of this article is to raise these problems into view clearly and unambiguously. This is undertaken via a careful examination of Alice Crary’s recent work, in which she attempts, firstly, to defend a left-Hegelian version of Critical Theory by relating it to the work of Peter Winch and, second, to issue a set of methodologically radical recommendations on employing the sensibility-shaping powers of the literary form. The article aims to deepen our understanding of the fundamental tensions between the Critical Theory and Wittgensteinian traditions, which Crary attempts to bring together and, ultimately, of those crucial features of our moral practices that frustrate the enterprise of critical social thought.
社会批评、道德推理与文学形式
被社会学生广泛选择作为一种方法,在这种方法下,劳动,解放,解放,或者,换句话说,批判性社会思想占据了知识和实际行动之间的位置,其一致性被认为是理所当然的,因为它试图处理的问题具有紧迫的性质。因此,它很少受到审查,它所面临的方法、概念和道德挑战也没有得到适当的确认。本文的贡献就是将这些问题清晰而明确地提出来。这是通过对爱丽丝·克拉里最近作品的仔细研究来完成的,在书中,她试图,首先,通过将批判理论与彼得·温奇的作品联系起来,为批判理论的左翼黑格尔版本辩护,其次,在运用文学形式的情感塑造力量方面,提出了一套方法论上激进的建议。这篇文章的目的是加深我们对批判理论和维特根斯坦传统之间的基本紧张关系的理解,克雷试图将它们结合起来,最终,我们的道德实践的那些关键特征阻碍了批判社会思想的事业。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Nordic Wittgenstein Review
Nordic Wittgenstein Review Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
审稿时长
40 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信