How One Should View Critique
Paul Wakfer
"critique" and to place it firmly among the set of praises that are
transmitted from one person to another rather than among the set of
censures.
First off, all readers should understand that I strongly dislike that
there is any need for me to make critiques of the thoughts and actions
of *anyone*. Oh, how I would love to live in a society where I rarely
found it necessary to do so, and then perhaps only with children during
their learning-about-life phase.
I will start with the definition of "critique" just to be certain that
readers understand the fundamental distinction between that meaning and
the most generally used meaning (apparently) of the closely associated
word, "criticize".
Critique:
"an act of criticizing;
<http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?book=Third&va=criticizing>
especially a critical
<http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?book=Third&va=critical>
examination or estimate of a thing or situation (as a work of art or
literature) with a view to determining its nature and limitations or its
conformity to standards"
Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged.
Merriam-Webster, 2002. http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com (18 Mar.
2010).
For "criticizing", Merriam-Webster's (MW) definition is:
"1: to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly:
EVALUATE
<http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?book=Third&va=evaluate>"
But also the aforementioned highly negative meaning:
"2: to stress the faults and demerits of: cavil at"
<http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=cavil>
Such is the dreadful ambiguity of English language words! And getting
worse all the time as people continue to apply words incorrectly and
consequently to distort reality. Even worse, the synonyms given by MW
are all for the second (newer and wrong, IMO) meaning (2 above).
"synonyms: REPREHEND
<http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?book=Third&va=reprehend>,
REPROBATE
<http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?book=Third&va=reprobate>,
BLAME
<http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?book=Third&va=blame>,
CENSURE
<http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?book=Third&va=censure>,
CONDEMN
<http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?book=Third&va=condemn>,
DENOUNCE
<http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?book=Third&va=denounce>"
MW does go on to say: "criticize, among more erudite persons, is likely
to indicate measured judgment or evaluation", which appears to imply
with respect to the current society that most people are *not* "erudite".
For "critical" MW states again two very different meanings:
"1a: inclined to criticize
<http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?book=Third&va=criticize>
severely and unfavorably: given to noticing faults and imperfections"
which is clearly related to the above negative #2 meaning of
"criticize", and
"1c: exercising or involving careful judgment or judicious evaluation:
DISCRIMINATING
<http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?book=Third&va=discriminating>,
CAREFUL
<http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?book=Third&va=careful>,
EXACT
<http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?book=Third&va=exact>"
which is clearly related to the #1 meaning of "criticize", and
thankfully, here MW even gives some synonyms for that more positive (and
I think more correct) meaning.
Actually, I don't think that I need to do much more to make my point
than to pose the following rhetorical question:
Given that one is a rational person, why would one spend one's precious
time, analyzing judging, evaluating and describing in carefully exact
detail to another person, those things that one sincerely thinks are
errors in that other person's thoughts or actions, unless one has a
considerable amount of esteem for that person?
The answer, of course, is that one wouldn't! But since that is the case,
then if person A does critique person B's thoughts or actions (which
includes writings) and person B is offended, then either of the
following must hold:
1) Person B thinks that person A is not rational (person A is only doing
this for some perverse delight, perhaps as a way for a weak ego to feel
better).
2) Person B has a vested (read irrational) interest in hir past and
current thoughts/actions and does not want to know the truth, or even to
explain/defend hir thoughts/actions, to show that they are right and to
explain that truth to person A.
Now in either case, if person A fails to get a sincere discussion of the
criticisms from person B, after some time and some number of examples,
then it would appear that the only rational course of action is to
disconnect from person B and effectively write hir off as not being
amenable to rational discussion and thus not interested in searching for
the truth, at least at the current time (I never write off anyone
permanently).
--Paul Wakfer
MoreLife for the rational - http://morelife.org
Reality based tools for more life in quantity and quality
The Self-Sovereign Individual Project - http://selfsip.org
Self-sovereignty, rational pursuit of optimal lifetime happiness,
individual responsibility, social preferencing & social contracting