Critiqued out!

“As if critique should be reserved for the

elite and remain difficult and strenuous, like mountain climbing or yachting,

and is no longer worth the trouble if everyone can do it for a nickel?

What would be so bad with critique for the people? We have been complaining

so much about the gullible masses, swallowing naturalized facts, it

would be really unfair to now discredit the same masses for their, what

should I call it, gullible criticism?”

Referring that only certain people are eligible to offer critique and are allowed to challenge or argue an issue provides the thought that the art of critique is much like drafting a theory. The initial author lavishes over their idea in the laboratory before it becomes manipulated and abused by outsiders.

It seems like critique is over offered and that is why the article was published in the first place. Nobody believes anything anymore, people are getting less and less information, and politicians are getting more sophisticated with their responses. Every house hold feels that they could run the country better, and has become mutual dinner conversation- but secretly half of them don’t even vote.

In this reading I feel Latour’s tone more than I understand his comments. Though this is probably the first article that has kept me entertained. The way he condoms critique is similar to the way I feel about describing the universe and ones purpose in life. If I go on long enough I go in circles and never accomplish an answer. Some with Latour, I feel his energy but I did not find an answer provided, which is saddening because his though process is difficult to follow and when it is over there was no sense of accomplishment, like in my earlier post there is no answer key so to say with him.