Responses to Robbie and Luke

Robbie -- What is the difference between a "definition" and an
"elaboration," and why does what I offered as a "definition" not work as
one? Be specific. Give me reasons and not just assertions.

If you think the word "computer" is a "generality" then of course you
would disagree with my statements. I don't think this is a very
meaningful definition, though -- if every word is a generality (this
would apply to verbs and adjectives as well as nouns, by your
description), then the word "generality" is synonymous with the word
"word," and that's hardly common usage either.

"Generality" must then be best applied to a specific kind of statement,
and that is how I was using it as well. If you want, I could offer this
as a provisional definition for the sake of argument, rather than trying
to argue from every notion of the word "generality" that anyone could
possibly have in mind:

"A generality is a kind of descriptive statement that lumps a diverse
class of objects into a single category." The word "computer" may seem
like it fits, but it doesn't because it's a word and not a statement. I
added the word "descriptive" as well to further modify it.

Now, the really pressing thing for this discussion is whether or not my
definition of generality fits Luke's statements that I called
generalities -- which, of course, it does. I believe I started this
when he provided a generality about "enlightenment" that supposedly held
true across different religious traditions (but doesn't).

You said:

> To say it another way, it seems to me that we don't have a very clear
> structural cause to say that something like "People who generalize are
> idiots" is NOT a generality but that "Jews are stingy" IS one.
>

Just like Luke, you have to misrepresent what you attack. Blake didn't
say that "people who make generalities are idiots." He said, "To
generalize is to be an idiot." In other words, the _act_ is an act of
idiocy. Otherwise intelligent people can do stupid things, you know.
Since Blake was passing judgment on a specific act (which I called
"habit of mind" earlier), I would say this isn't a generality. He's not
talking about a "class" of people united by a set of characteristics
(like, say, Jews), but talking about a type of act people with all kinds
of different characteristics can commit (like, say, telling a lie).

So, if you were thinking clearly about it and really understood your
opponent's position, you'd realize that Blake's "to generalize is to be
an idiot" is really more like, "to lie is to be dishonest" than it is
like, "Jews are stingy" (to use your poor example).

Pay attention, man :).

Luke -- yours is a weak defense because it doesn't deal with the many
particulars I provided during the course of the argument, so much so
that it's really a very silly straw man attack on a position that was
elaborated in more detail than your response allows.

I think you should see that my position developed to the point where I
would accept some generalities -- for example, statistical data (though
I recognized the problems inherent in that) -- and reject other kinds of
generalities, for example, generalities that would compress discreet
ideas about different religious traditions into a single homogeneous
whole. That was the specific type of generality you seemed to be making
to me.

Because I perceive the specific Truth about these different religious
traditions, it is irksome and repulsive to me to see them collapsed
under a single heading. I disagree because I respect the religious
traditions.

It's very difficult to respond without doing a recap on the entire
discussion, however. I think you started with a statement about
Seymour, perhaps something relating to enlightenment. If not then, it
was brought up in your very next post.

At any rate, you're ascribing the best motives to yourself and the worst
to me; if I were as sensitive as you claim not to be, I could easily
accuse you of incivility, but either way it is an essentially dishonest
form of argumentation. John O's first response to you is a pretty good
recap of what I'm talking about.

That you claim objectivity for your side and subjective "interpretation"
for my side isn't really an argument, it's just you claiming you've
"won" (whatever that means) before the argument has even begun.

But none of this is what originally got me going. I think what really,
initially annoyed me was a seemingly dismissive attitude on your part
toward your subject, a dismissiveness that was communicated as much by
your vapid generalities as by your tone. I responded in kind.

So if you or Robbie are bothered by my dismissiveness toward you, Luke,
well, buck up. You earned it by sounding dismissive yourself.

Unfortunately, I don't archive the b-fish posts otherwise I'd start from
there. I really have much better things to do with my hard drive space.

Note I'm not arguing any kind of principle, though if you choose you can
try to infer a principle from my statements. I'd rather clearly see the
specific thing in front of me rather than obscure it behind a generality
of any sort. And I'm not really talking about _you_ either; just about
how you sounded to me.

You classical liberal arts guys really need to learn that thinking
people don't give a damn how well you say something. I'm sure all this
nonsense goes over very well in your classroom, impressing the
underclassmen and maybe the TAs forced to listen to your vapid
pontificating. Those beyond that stage, though, care more about the
content of what you're saying.

It seems to be almost entirely lacking.

And before you go questioning my motives, examine your own. Especially
examine the motive that led you to restart this discussion after it had
died, even after I refused to restart the argument when Robbie brought
it back up.

I'd almost think you maybe thought you had a shot at "winning."

God you two sound pathetically smug and self-righteous.

At least when I insult people, I don't lie to myself about it.

Jim

> I did some thinking, and I want to return to this discussion of generalities for a bit. Jim's
> attack strategies last weekend bothered me more than I would care to admit, were he simply
> being uncivil, as I purport to be unphased by incivility. But something far more nefarious is
> going on here.
>
> Jim, the distinction you make between a generality and a description/summary is arbitrary. One
> might argue that Blake's description, without further qualification, describes a wide range or
> class of "generalities." Therefore, if Blake is convenient for the critic himself, he might
> extol it as a "description," whilst the critic who disagrees would condemn it as a
> "generality." Neither of these arguments really try to capture the meaning of the quote itself
> (and indeed, it's not a very meaningful quote; I used "pithy" as an unflattering description of
> it regardless of "pithy"'s usual connotations).
>
> All this makes for uncivil debate, because it presupposes political motives in interpretation
> (again surfaces the subjective nature of interpretation!), distinct from the objective truth of
> what a quote means or what a speaker is saying. It puzzled me that you brought "religious
> traditions" into the debate, when I wasn't striving to discuss religion at all. (I apologize if
> I directed the discussion that way, without intending to do so.) Now I understand it more
> clearly. The distinction you're harping on, between what is or is not a generality, shifts the
> debate from the objective content of the arguments at hand, to the subjective interpretations
> of those arguments that the speakers might have. Is this not the fundamental principle of
> Modernist criticism? The critic is empowered, and the truthful content of what he criticizes is
> lost in the obfuscation.
>
> What bothers me tremendously is that this kind of debate structure anihilates the potential for
> full reconciliation afterwards, and for harmonious relationships. Politically-motivated
> interpreation undermines the possibility that the two debaters might see themselves as in
> pursuit of similar truths and involved in a common human experience that, for me, is a powerful
> motive for reconiciliation following any comparatively inconsequential disagreement like this.
>
> luke
>
>

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Sun Jul 13 12:13:07 2003