Why are you here?
To move away from “this is how it seems to me” and go to “this is how it stands.” Here I take the article, open it until its seams are visible, measure what holds up and what is frills, and tie it back together in five clear steps: a summary without distortions, an analysis with pages (not wish lists), an objection that is called straight, an evaluation that separates substance from noise, a conclusion that is not ashamed to be a conclusion. I test it on Smith (2018) to see how it stands “in the light.” And I give you the little tools you need to keep the text from overflowing: template, Claim–Evidence–Comment, checklist. Goal? To write something that you can sign without blinking.
How the Website is used
See also Birdie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-Hzp85Bq0c
You start with the Method: five steps (summary, analysis, objection, evaluation, conclusion) with short examples and clear criteria. Then go to the Example (Smith 2018) to see the application step by step. You download the template, the Claim–Evidence–Comment table and the one-page Checklist from Tools. You write your own review following the flow, and before closing, you go through the Q&A for quick clarifications (e.g. “summary vs review”, “what is cherry-picking”). If you need accessibility help or want to tell us something, there is Accessibility and Feedback in the footer.
Purpose of the page
To take you from "this is how it seems to me" to "this is how it is documented." That is, to write a critique that stands up to a lesson, a seminar, or even a publication: a clear position, explicit criteria, page references, and a conclusion that can withstand the "why?"
Why is Smith's article interesting?
It is a good "crash-test" for our method, because:
He takes the body politic from Aristotle to Hobbes, so he talks about continuities/ruptures in thinking about political unity.
It shows how Hobbes uses persona and legal incorporation to “make visible” the multitude as a body—a subject that raises substantial criticism.
It allows you to see what is a strong contribution (e.g. rhetorical visualization) and where there may be a gap (e.g. whether a deep line of tradition is actually documented or just a clever association).
So it lends itself to a clear verdict based on evidence, not impressions.
What do you have to gain?
A complete, documented critique (based on pages, not generalities), with a structure that you can reuse in other articles. In short: method, example, tools — and a signed verdict.
Ποια είμαι;
Είμαι η Ελένη! Δεν χρειάζεται επίθετο....
Είμαι η Ελένη. Δεν κυνηγάω τίτλους τύπου «κριτικός» ή «intellectual». Αν χρειαστεί, θα γράψω κριτική άρθρου και θα σταθεί· αλλά αυτό που πραγματικά με νοιάζει δεν είναι παραμόνο, η καθαρή σκέψη. Μου αρέσει να βρίσκω αμέσως το πού από επιχείρημα, ένα "επιχείρημα" - τελικά είναι μια λογικηπλάνη. Μια ανάγνωση, και το σφάλμα φαίνεται. Αγαπώ τη φιλοσοφία, σπουδάζω πολιτική θεωρία και έχω ιδιαίτερο ενδιαφέρον για τον Hobbes. Κάποια στιγμή έπρεπε να γράψω μια κριτική για το μάθημα αντί να το πάρω σοβαρά, έφτιαξα αυτό το site για να γίνει όλο το πράγμα πιο fun και πιο καθαρό για όποιον/α θέλει να το δοκιμάσει.
