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