Homer, hyperbole & ad hominem

[Terrance]

jbor wrote:
> 
> ----------
> >From: Terrance <lycidas2 at earthlink.net>
> >
> 
> > It is not my purpose to change how you perceive the case
> > jbor, but I will try to spell out my meaning more clearly if
> > you will explain what it is in my post that you perceive as
> > an ad hominem?
> 
> 1) The unsolicited attack on me where you presume to speak on behalf of
> others: tone, tenor and substance.

Solicitation is not required here. I am butting in because
while silence does work with flamers neither party is a
flamer in this case, both parties are long standing members
here, and fearing to rush in where angels fear to tread
isn't working. We need to quell this protracted feud so that
we may return to  more productive discussions.  I am not
attacking you and I do not presume to speak for anyone.
Also, please note I included the Homer review because I
thought it would be helpful and interesting and I quoted the
the passages that discussed the ongoing feud over Homer and
how that feud has diverted attention away from the greatness
of Homer's poetry and of his vision of humanity to set the
tone, the tenor of my post. 
 
> 
> 2) The accusation that my analogy was intended as an ad hominem.

No, I made no such accusation. I asked you:

" Is it an ad hominem? "

You replied that it is not. I accept your reply. 

> 
> 3) The conclusion that my analogy was "more offensive" than millison's
> tirade, which, by the way, was not simply hyperbole, but consisted of an ad
> hominem attack, blatant misrepresentations and inaccuracy, and a rather
> outlandish and simple-minded conflation of trans-global corporatisation with
> neo-Nazism.

No, that is not the conclusion I posted. 

> 
> > OK, but if you don't mind, I would like you to explain one
> > more thing before I reply.
> >
> > What do mean when you state, "I have no idea what they
> > might be capable of"?
> 
> I mean that I do not know what they might be capable of.

But what does it mean in this context? 

you said, 

"The Nazis might well have been sincere in their
"interpretations" of
Nietzsche, and they certainly might have believed in the
innate supremacy of
the Aryan race which those "interpretations" were garnered
to support;
similarly, millison & monroe might well be sincere in their
"interpretations" of Pynchon, and they might well believe in
whatever it is
that they imagine Pynchon's texts confirm for them. I have
no idea what they
might be capable of; nevertheless, I think the analogy I
made is both sound
and apt, and I stand by it. I believe it now falls to you to
say why, in
your opinion, it "doesn't work"."


> 
> ***
> 
> It was a simple question. You made the assertion that my analogy "doesn't
> work". I have asked you to explain why this is the case, in your opinion.

Yes, Nietzsche was a literary and social critic, and
therefore your analogy might make more sense if you compared
Millison and Monroe with him, but your analogy likens 
Monroe and Millison to the Nazis who you say used "selective
and self-serving interpretation of
Nietzsche's work which they constructed off their own bat."
This analogy doesn't work for the same reasons that
analogizing neo-Nazism doesn't work. In both cases the
injury to the analogized position of the p-list poster by
association with Nazi or neo-nazi interpretations and
constructions is so odious that neither hyperbole nor ad
hominem describes the results.