[lit-ideas] Re: Paralogisms of Heat
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 08:27:14 EDT
McEvoy:
"They are both philosophical (insofar as they are beyond testing by
observation) and literary (insofar as they could be part of literature)."
vis a vis Geary:
"For example, if I say: "Women make me hot." That's a Literary
expression. But if I say: "Why do women make me hot?" Ah, that's a
Philosophical
expression."
McEvoy:
"They are ... literary."
---- This seems to beg a question. Recall Geary's caveat:
"I don't *know* what I *want* to write about. Literature? No, I AM
Literature and I'm tired of talking about myself."
By modus tollendo tollens, and applying the Interpretive Principle of
Charity, this would yield that Geary's
"Why women make me hot?" should NOT be interpreted as 'literature' (or
'literary expression', as Geary prefers) but "philosophical expression". In
other words, Geary would apply, _contra_ Popper, the paralogism that "Women
make me hot" IS empirical (and thus literary) while the presupposition of
"WHY women make me hot?" is not -- but just the paralogistic expression of
what he calls a "Philosophical Idea".
Similarly, setting Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit to rhymed couplets does
not turn it into a "literary expression", in Geary's apt distinction.
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
