(urth) academic commentary

[James Wynn]

> Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote-
> Thus, while your first statement is necessary it is not sufficient: it
> is legitimate, and perhaps even necessary, to ask why<critic>  chooses
> the methodology s/he does and not some other methodology. The answer
> to that question is going to be rooted in<critic>'s ideology and
> metaphysics.

Analyzing an argument by the supposed motives of the arguer can quickly 
go off the rails.

 From "Pilgrim's Regress" by CS Lewis:

    "'Come, come,' said the jailor. "You must know your catechism by
    now. You, there' (and he pointed to a prisoner little older than a
    boy whose name was Master Parrot), 'what is argument?'

    'Argument,' said Master Parrot, 'is the attempted rationalization of
    the arguer's desires.'

    'Very good,' replied the jailor, 'but you should turn out your toes
    and put your hands behind your back. That is better. Now: what is
    the proper answer to an argument proving the existence of the
    Landlord? The proper answer is, 'You say that because you are a
    Steward'.

    'Good boy. But hold your head up. That's right. And what is the
    answer to an argument proving that Mr. Phally's songs are just as
    brown as Mr. Halfways?'

    'There are two only generally necessary to damnation', said master
    Parrot. 'The first is, "You say that because you are a Puritan," and
    the second is, "You say that because you are a sensualist." '

    'Good. Now just one more. What is the answer to an argument turning
    on the belief that two and two make four?'

    'The answer is, "You say that because you are a mathematician." '

    'You are a very good boy,' said the jailor. "


u+16b9

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20101201/6357eb1e/attachment-0001.htm>