English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In view of the commentary «Critique of critical criticism», attention is drawn here to specific parts of the study «Reasons not to believe...» in which, in specific terms, the opposite of what in the above mentioned commentary are considered to be alleged «fallacies», are listed —a) «indeterminacy», the fact of not knowing «differences» between one author and another; b) «exaggeration», a term used to describe this study. In addition, it is shown that the substantial indeterminacy of the content specified for the other two main objections, c) «the vice of idealization», «distorts», «spoils» d) «critic’s syndrome», makes it impossible to clarify if this might perhaps also refer to something which is not simply «a matter of taste», that is to say, not only to express emotional perspectives (attitudes) of a negative nature, deriving from those points of a descriptive nature (ideas) whose speaking out contrasts with the varied games of escapist abstractions which predominate in theory of law today. After underlining the alternative between «critical criticism» (saying what «hurts») and some —not very critical— criticism («saying just enough»), the author concludes by inviting objections to be raised, objections which essentially consist not in disagreements of attitudes, slogans: «saying just enough» (not keeping quiet-but-keeping quiet) vs. «critical criticism» (not keeping quiet, but without concessions), but instead consist in disagreements of beliefs: to discuss ideas (in the strict sense!), from among those put forward there.

Callar o no callar... That is the question! (Entre «crítica crítica» y las críticaspoco-críticas)