Had anyone ever put any consent thoughts toward theorizing any theory? For so many books or journals I have read, I often found the similar case. It feels like a repeating history, a deja vu. But the term that describes is best is the term used by Prof. Budi Hardiman: bankrupt theory. It means a theory which is not valid anymore because the output cannot be verified once it’s implemented. But I’m interested in Voloshinov and Vygotsky’s term ‘organic theory’. This term is used quite often in textbooks, to explain which theory is in used, though we also study ‘old theory’ that derived the new ones by it’s flaws.
Starting from the moment I read off Freud and Jung’s confronting arguments, I start thinking that a lot of expertise started their long lasting debate which ended unsolved because of one reason: they never start their arguments from the same contextual ground level. I think I’ve already wrote about the debate of Jung and Freud around 2-3 years ago during my college study HERE. So to sum these up, I believe that phenomenon doesn’t necessarily just change, it has it’s own cycle. History repeats, and so does the phenomenon that substracts a theory. That’s why I said I believe in repeating history. Somehow, nothing will be exactly the same.
Normally one theory is built due to certain phenomenon, thus no theory are normally implementable toward all circumstances. Which is why organic theory, or my preferred term, recycled theory, is more acceptable. As history repeats, so does the theory function. Even so, the context should adapt and compile.
Advertisement
Hello everyone! I share my thoughts here. Sometimes it may sounds a little weird or too radical, I know. But then it is just a spark of thoughts I would love to share :) And yeah, as you know "knowledge is a power, but ignorance is a bliss" [Plato]
0 Responses to “Recycling Theory”