Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
i do think that legions of academics in recent decades have indulged in excesses brought about by the mindless following of intellectual fashions, and thus lost a good amount of influence and relevance in society at large.
critical theory is responsible for losing the support of its patrons, whoever they were. perhaps retaining that support would have required a betrayal of its own principles, perhaps the loss of support was deserved, perhaps whatever critical theory does is not relevant to its receiving patronage or support-- i am not qualified either but as the saying goes, it takes two to tango, so i'm going to say it's not just "them" that fucked up and it's time for academia to do some soul searching (i meant to respond to demonrail's post about the arts but i'm running out of time).
|
Then I don't see how your historical perspective implicates critical theory in any exceptional manner. Socrates decried sophistry for many of the same points but the philosophers who were included under it have been valuable. What makes this a develop of "recent decades" rather than a common and necessary trait? You mention intellectualism being a result of wealth so does intellectualism always bring it upon itself during impoverished times by simply being itself?
You speak of patrons but you don't know who they are so I don't know how this is relevant. What patrons? I was under the impression that universities funded their departments from tuition and the like rather than wealthy private interests. Could you explain to me the role of patronage in contemporary the university system?