[lit-ideas] Re: Ye Olde Dialectic
- From: "Phil Enns" <phil.enns@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2005 17:17:01 -0400
Eric Yost wrote:
"If I understand Phil's "post," we are again talking past one another."
Why "post"? I had referred to Eric's 'point' and perhaps Eric took offense at
this. Yet, Eric himself talked of making a point but that it was not his own
position. So, if I am referring to the argument Eric is putting forward, how
do I accurately refer to it? It is Eric's point but not his own, hence Eric's
'point'. What other short form would be appropriate here? The difficulty lies
in Eric defending a position that he is merely presenting without advocating,
and without making clear who precisely might own such a position. In general,
this usually leads to awkwardness and should be avoided.
Moving on to the argument, Eric claims we are, apparently again, talking past
one another. I don't think so. I have repeatedly tried to show why Eric's
whatever-the-hell-he-wants-to-call-it is incoherent. I await some evidence
from Eric that I have been talking past him.
Eric continues:
"Yes, the notion I presented (without advocating) is that: 'If people act, the
danger is that government will take this as
license to do less when it should in fact do what people are doing.'
However--and it is a big however--that does not mean that people should not
act. It means that people should do other things that government does not do."
As I have tried to show all along, this gets things ass-backwards: The point is
not for people to do what government does not do, but that government do what
people cannot. Perhaps because I refuse to accept the view of government that
lies behind Eric's whatever-the-hell-he-wants-to-call-it, Eric takes us to be
talking past each other. If the exercise is to consider the
whatever-the-hell-he-wants-to-call-it Eric presented, then I am doing so and
trying to show it is fundamentally incoherent.
Eric concludes:
"[Phil] confuses the presentation of an idea with its advocacy."
Not at all. That was why I put the word "point" in single quotes, to set it
apart as having a special meaning. I have no idea what Eric believes with
regards to this issue except that he takes the
whatever-the-hell-he-wants-to-call-it seriously and that he is in agreement
with the quote from Lincoln. That these two beliefs are in conflict with each
other ought to give Eric pause.
Sincerely,
Phil Enns
Toronto, ON
------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
