Structuralist and Post-Structuralist Criticism

Thankyou very much Adroit fr your support and for your pointing out the weaknesses and the strenghts and also for your encouragement.Infact, my article was just the work of a novice and i am sure that with the help of constructive criticism, i will try to do better in future.

Well, there isn`t anything particularly wrong with this article. I support this young lady in her defence against a pretty envious allegation of `cutting and pasting.`

Now, two short comments about the article. Dearly, you seem to be jumping quite carelessly in this very debatable issue about claiming so easily that `Plato was a moralist.` Whatever happened to giving some thought to those who find in him ambiguities fatal to Plato`s case against his opponents?! And believe me if you pay attention, there are many. But one could give you some levy for not considering this issue about pure-philosophy of Ethics while writing about literary theory.
Secondly, this article seems quite like a cursory `sight-seing tour` of Structuralism and Post Structuralism. I say this `cuz I didn`t find any of your own views about these theories. You do realise that philosophy is not only about describing other people`s views, its mainly to suggest- if one is able to- one`s own views.
But while I am at it, i did like you mentioning Hazrat Khansaa to the `oh i am so clever` wanabes of this website. I can assure you most of them won`t even understand half of anything about actual philosophy or the issues they murmur about. Muger kia kijiay kay poora jahan taba-azmai per tula hai ajkal!!!

Anyhow, you are doing well.

Good day to you!

Dear Readers,

I am really apologetic about the refernces appearing in a very bad form.Infact, i had requested the editors to correct them,and i am grateful to them that they did try but i think this is the best that they could do. Well, the references have appeared incompletely and there are some strange signs as well. Please ignore these as mistakes of the publishing process that could not be corrected.

Urbashi:
What make syou think it is a ``cut and paste`` work?Please prove your statement. One must avoid making sweeping statements (with no offence). For me , the recorded history goes back to the Greeks who were pioneers in almost every field. I am sure you will definitely enlighten us with your knowledge by sharing with us the critical works of people other than Greeks on this forum.

kaalchakra:

I am sure urbashi is going to tell us more about structuralism and poststructuralism in detail. As per my humble and limited knowledge( as i`m just an amateur student of it), structuralism and poststructuralism have affected all the areas of knowledge, all disciplines and the new ``forms`` that have emerged in social sciences are the developed and built-upon forms of teh same phenomena called structuralism and post-structuralism.

Urbashi, someone was claiming that there was no real love between human beings until Christianity came along. So just ignore the ignorance of the habitually ignorant, and focus on the useful bit.

If you would like, tell us something more about structuralism. I would love to know how it has seeped into other disciplines. Are various forms of new and not-so-new institutionalisms popular in different areas of social sciences aspects of the same structuralism/ post-structuralism?

Amazing that someone could think she could sum up structuralism and post-structuralism like this, with the help of a bit of cut and paste, of course.
When the writer states, ``The Greeks were, in the recorded history, the first to have a literary theory and to practice criticism of literature``, is she talking about recorded history in the West/Europe, or recorded history all over the world? If the latter, she seems to be very poorly informed indeed. Not surprising that she can produce an article las shallow and presumptious as this one.