General Fite Theory
This will be not only a ramble, but a very early morning ramble. Hopefully the great amounts of coffee I have consumed to further my Augustine-reading ability will increase my mental acuity and clarity. The inspiration for this rant came to me through my Sophomore Language class with the incomparable Mr. Nambiar. In our discussions of Oedipus Rex Mr. Nambiar tried to find a non-Freudian and yet non-literal interpretation of the text. In order to further this end he had us attempt a classification of all linguistic phenomena. This eventually led to the formation of many sets of opposites into which such phenomena might fall. This Pythagorean task reminded me of the distinct divisions which make up the bulk of Fite Theory. (I also had reason to bring up the Prior vs. Superior in discussion of the One in Plotinus, which led to a fruitful and though-provoking discussion.) So here we go:
The distinctions which have been set up so far in Fite Theory seem to fall into two categories, those with stated opposites and those without. The prime example of those with Fite-like opposition is Prior/Superior, and the prime example of a simple distinction is Pointless Romanticism. Firstly I would like to suggest that there are natural opposites to even these simple distinctions, the opposite of Pointless Romantic being perhaps Soulless Pragmatic, and the opposite of Candy-Shopper being something like a Third Person Fiter, someone who divorces himself completely from his own preference. As to the negativity of these opposites, and the possible Aristotelian mean I will leave that to further consideration and comment.
Secondly, I would like to look closely at the already opposed distinctions and propose a few more. The obvious place to start is with the Prior and the Superior, since that is the opposition which turns up most often in the ol' Nelson Room. I think that this opposition is also the one which is the most misquoted seeing as it has a built in value judgment in the word "superior." The purpose of the Tuesday Nite Fites is to select the superior concept, so obviously if this is an opposition in a straight literal sense then nobody who believes in it should ever vote for what is prior. In my eyes at least the Prior/Superior conflict is more one of possibility. Certainly it is possible for the Prior concept to be the Superior as well,or not as the case may be. The opposition exists in the possible division rather than in the necessary division. If you espouse the recent statement concerning Friction by Erikk, ("Too subtle to be serious?"), then you would believe that whatever is so subtle could not be the superior concept, but it would also be possible to see subtlety as conceptual power and so vote for that which is the most subtle. The opposition can and does exist, but it is one for personal preference and thought.
Perhaps still within the structure of P/S is the distinction that can be made between Nature and Art. Many Fites come down to something which is naturally occurring and uncontrollable (e.g. friction, gravity, acceleration, etc.), and something created and controllable (e.g. furniture, words, politics, etc.). Again there must be a personal preference in this, but I would propose that the conceptual power is greater in those things which we have a more complete understanding of, and which we have made using the conceptual organs of our brains. This comes down to the Geanikkis Friction Postulate, so it could easily be argued against with an argument for the power of subtlety.
I have just come down off of my caffeine buzz, and this is going on fairly long, so I'll cut it off here and post more of it later. Also, if you have any Fite Theory of your own please post it, so the issue can be addressed more fully with the hope that it will inform the voting process and make the Fites more enjoyable. Please add P/S, N/A, and GFP to your Fite vocab. That is all. I sleep now.
Schuyler
The distinctions which have been set up so far in Fite Theory seem to fall into two categories, those with stated opposites and those without. The prime example of those with Fite-like opposition is Prior/Superior, and the prime example of a simple distinction is Pointless Romanticism. Firstly I would like to suggest that there are natural opposites to even these simple distinctions, the opposite of Pointless Romantic being perhaps Soulless Pragmatic, and the opposite of Candy-Shopper being something like a Third Person Fiter, someone who divorces himself completely from his own preference. As to the negativity of these opposites, and the possible Aristotelian mean I will leave that to further consideration and comment.
Secondly, I would like to look closely at the already opposed distinctions and propose a few more. The obvious place to start is with the Prior and the Superior, since that is the opposition which turns up most often in the ol' Nelson Room. I think that this opposition is also the one which is the most misquoted seeing as it has a built in value judgment in the word "superior." The purpose of the Tuesday Nite Fites is to select the superior concept, so obviously if this is an opposition in a straight literal sense then nobody who believes in it should ever vote for what is prior. In my eyes at least the Prior/Superior conflict is more one of possibility. Certainly it is possible for the Prior concept to be the Superior as well,or not as the case may be. The opposition exists in the possible division rather than in the necessary division. If you espouse the recent statement concerning Friction by Erikk, ("Too subtle to be serious?"), then you would believe that whatever is so subtle could not be the superior concept, but it would also be possible to see subtlety as conceptual power and so vote for that which is the most subtle. The opposition can and does exist, but it is one for personal preference and thought.
Perhaps still within the structure of P/S is the distinction that can be made between Nature and Art. Many Fites come down to something which is naturally occurring and uncontrollable (e.g. friction, gravity, acceleration, etc.), and something created and controllable (e.g. furniture, words, politics, etc.). Again there must be a personal preference in this, but I would propose that the conceptual power is greater in those things which we have a more complete understanding of, and which we have made using the conceptual organs of our brains. This comes down to the Geanikkis Friction Postulate, so it could easily be argued against with an argument for the power of subtlety.
I have just come down off of my caffeine buzz, and this is going on fairly long, so I'll cut it off here and post more of it later. Also, if you have any Fite Theory of your own please post it, so the issue can be addressed more fully with the hope that it will inform the voting process and make the Fites more enjoyable. Please add P/S, N/A, and GFP to your Fite vocab. That is all. I sleep now.
Schuyler