Re: Responses to Robbie and Luke

Now, see, that is a good response. So let me give it a good response in
turn.

Scottie said:

> '... "to lie is to be dishonest" ...'
>
> Huh? Don't mind me but I thought that was
> no more than a tautological statement, rather
> different in quality from 'all Jews are stingy'.
>
> Scottie B.
>

I'd say Blake would say that "generalizing" and "being an idiot" is also
a tautology in the same way and for the same reasons. And I was
distinguishing between the "lie" statement and the "Jews" statement, so
I agree with you that they're two completely different kinds of
expression.

I put Blake's dictum in the same category as the "To lie..." statement,
and said it is different from the "Jews are..." statement.

But let's take it a step further.

First, I said "to generalize is to be an idiot" is "more like" saying
"to lie is to be dishonest" than it is like saying "Jews are stingy."

So I'm not arguing for an exact parallel. Even if we accept that the
statement about lying is a tautology and the statement about
generalizing is not (that's fair, regardless of Blake's probable
intent), I still think other parallels make the comparison meaningful.

A person who lies is being dishonest at the moment he's lying, but does
that mean he's a dishonest person? If Jews are stingy, they're stingy
at all times and in all persons. If a person lies, does that mean a
person is dishonest at all times and in all places? In other words,
does a single lie determine a global character trait?

Of course not. Perhaps the person is lying to protect someone else from
embarassment, or to protect the innocent from a criminal...the list
could go on and on. While it's true that the act of lying is a
dishonest act, we can't determine a person's character from a single
instance of the act without a lot more information.

I would say the same is true of generalizing. The act of generalizing
is an idiotic act (given the qualifications I've already admitted).
That doesn't mean it's a global judgment on a person's character. It's a
specific judgment on a specific kind of act.

For that reason I'm saying it's not a "generality" in any sense of the
word but something much more specific than that. It's not so much like
the statement about Jews but more like the statement about being
dishonest.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Sun Jul 13 17:53:55 2003