Yesterday, I got back from my two-and-a-half day outing into the exotic locales and tropical climes of New Jersey, staying the nights over at Howard Prospect's house
( Read more... )
This is something that bothers me at the moment: the use of a text as a proxy for oneself in an intellectual discussion. It's one thing to use a text as a resource, a source of inspiration, or an instruction manual, but to have the text perform the act of debating in one's place... it's either laziness or a sign that the person hasn't completely understood the position they're purporting to hold.
Or, to be fair, it's just a matter of convenience/efficiency.
i agree. it seems unfair to demand argument from someone, be unable to defend one's own point, and then say "well.. read this book." You may as well have skipped the entire argument and had a book exchange.
the problem with arguments by one author in a book is that strawman thingum... or something... (of course it's going to be convincing! it's a book! it wouldn't sell very well if it didn't seem convincing.)
I'm sympathetic but undecided about this. I think it might be fair to defer to a book if one honestly has forgotten all the details of an argument that one has found compelling. That may mean "losing" a debate, whatever that means, but I think that it is possible to know of the existence of a good argument for P even if one is unable to produce it.
Comments 4
ha!
Reply
Or, to be fair, it's just a matter of convenience/efficiency.
Reply
the problem with arguments by one author in a book is that strawman thingum... or something... (of course it's going to be convincing! it's a book! it wouldn't sell very well if it didn't seem convincing.)
i think i might be cynical.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment