What I dislike the most about critical theory is how much influence freud and lacan have, although ofc deleuze has been critical of them , but freud basically invented the modern concept of conversion disorder and hysteria. Even a lot of good marxists I used to like who have interesting ideas about how capitalism causes various mental illnesses and social pathologies, when I think about a) how much they borrow from lacanian psychoanalysis and b)how much they'd rather root causes of pathologies in the social structures rather than in things like literal environmental toxins and pathogens,, it makes me take them far less seriously.
A prime example is how mark fisher, who used to be a favorite , discussed children of men, an incredible dystopian film in which everybody is sterile for an unknown reason. He talked about it as a metaphor for cultural sterility. Eg in late capitalism /capitalist realism, we are not making new cultural ideas, especially because of precarity and bureaucracy affecting the art world etc. But the non metaphorical sterility in Children of Men, set in 2040, is incredibly plausible based on current rates of sperm counts dropping and endocrinological disorders increasing. So the focus should be on understanding environmental toxins increasing these things, rather than to solely read things on the symbolic register and analyze them to death. I mean I think, as someone affected by an environmental illness, that is such a major example of a critical theorist missing the forest for the trees. Or just missing the point, incredibly badly. But I do think some philosophy , and theology , that qualifies as critical theory, is useful , but it's pretty small amount. We do need to understand philosophy of science instead of just assuming the scientific process works automatically and confusing process with product. And we do need to understand the psychological opposition to dealing with environmental problems as a civilization. I read some mircea eliade and my sister is reading me some guenon and these seem more valuable than a lot of critical theory, and I honestly think that in order to see ourselves as connected to nature in a way that is scientifically accurate , and helpful for preserving our lives and health , we may need to reinvent ourselves as animists. Who don't believe in whig history or most types of teleology.
But some philosophy is needed, still,for example philosophy of science to understand how stuff like the pace trial get propagated and how resilient the concept of hysteria is despite being empirically nonsense. Also to understand how scientists, also all humans , think of themselves as separate from nature and thus not only damage their environment but are more reticent to study environmental toxins effect on human disease than is rational, despite thinking of that as one of the main factors in animal disease. I don't think enough critical theory adequately addresses the above thiugh, I actually like simpler philosophical stuff like daniel quinn's ishmael which is sort of simple deep ecology, or edward abbey