Talk:Critique of Dialectical Reason

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Put a little more into it, removed tag I placed. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good a place as any 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  2014 reworking of entry 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  2015 edits 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Scruton undue