MadGenuis
Member
- Jan 6, 2019
- 154
- 308
- 187
I've been lurking here for a while now, initially hoping for an update and then just to follow what people say here, since a few people have actually made some pretty interesting observations about a number of topics. It has been both amusing and occasionally educational, in a sense.
Lately, as has been coming up a lot in the past few pages, I've been fascinated with the idea that people cannot criticize something unless they can produce comparable or better results themselves. Naturally that idea by itself is ludicrous, as curilho aptly demonstrated in his post, but I'd like to do a little thought experiment.
Let's say you're a person who actually believes in that idea; that you cannot criticize something unless you have attempted it yourself. In that case, I would like to play a bit of a Uno reverse-card by taking that idea to its logical extreme. You see, according to dictionary definitions (like Oxford or Merriam-Webster) "criticism" can essentially mean two things:
To say something specifically negative about something or someone,
or to evaluate something or someone, good or bad.
Now this may just be me, but I'm actually someone who usually subscribe to the second meaning of "criticism"; criticism can be constructive or destructive, and negative or positive. Any kind of evaluation of a thing or person is, in essence, a criticism.
In other words, taken to its logical extreme, anyone that wants to argue that you cannot criticize something unless you have attempted it yourself, also cannot express a positive opinion about that thing themselves unless they, too, have attempted it. Fair is fair; if you cannot express displeasure or complain, you also cannot express adoration or defend.
That is all; please resume your normal activities.
Lately, as has been coming up a lot in the past few pages, I've been fascinated with the idea that people cannot criticize something unless they can produce comparable or better results themselves. Naturally that idea by itself is ludicrous, as curilho aptly demonstrated in his post, but I'd like to do a little thought experiment.
Let's say you're a person who actually believes in that idea; that you cannot criticize something unless you have attempted it yourself. In that case, I would like to play a bit of a Uno reverse-card by taking that idea to its logical extreme. You see, according to dictionary definitions (like Oxford or Merriam-Webster) "criticism" can essentially mean two things:
To say something specifically negative about something or someone,
or to evaluate something or someone, good or bad.
Now this may just be me, but I'm actually someone who usually subscribe to the second meaning of "criticism"; criticism can be constructive or destructive, and negative or positive. Any kind of evaluation of a thing or person is, in essence, a criticism.
In other words, taken to its logical extreme, anyone that wants to argue that you cannot criticize something unless you have attempted it yourself, also cannot express a positive opinion about that thing themselves unless they, too, have attempted it. Fair is fair; if you cannot express displeasure or complain, you also cannot express adoration or defend.
That is all; please resume your normal activities.
Last edited:
