If youve spent too much time trolling the web the
last year or so, youll have been unfortunately exposed to a form of literary
criticism now much favoured among the far right. It consists in taking a piece
the author doesnt like and objecting in one way or another to every line. So you
might see examples like this. (Article to be thoughtfully critiqued in italics,
thoughtful criticism between the lines.)
Either the butler
did it or the gardener did.
Thats not true.
Neither did.
The butler didnt
do it.
Yes he did. Youre
only saying that because you hate Republicans.
So the gardener did.
No he didnt, and
that doesnt follow from your premises.
Well, thats actually a bit better than some
efforts, because at least the critiquers first two statements entail his
third, so theres something like a valid argument there. Maybe a better example
would be the following (material shamelessly thieved from a well-known if not
widely-enough adored comic troupe).
An argument isnt just
contradiction. It is a series of statements intended to establish a conclusion.
No it isnt.
Argument is an
intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything
the other person says.
It is NOT!
I had thought this whole style of reasoning had
become very 2002 after Kevin
Drums clever demonstration that by the standards applicable in this genre the
Gettysburg address would be judged a woeful failure. (Scroll about two-thirds
the way down to see it.) But it seems its back, at the hands of an overpaid
not over something minion who
clearly hasnt spent his youth the way James Joyce spent his.
On a happier note, Matthew Yglesiass blog seems to
be getting better and better, which is impressive given how good its always
been. If you like hawkish Democratic
political commentary between philosophical
interludes,
you should read his site. And theres a rather different use of Michael
Dummett in a debate about race than I thought Id encounter anytime soon. (If any Dummett scholars reading this site, or even better Professor Sir Michael
himself, who I dont think is a regular
reader, could tell me if the great man endorses the exact way Matthews used the
theory of realism here, Id be most interested.)