Opinions are like underwear

[Otto]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Terrance" <lycidas2 at earthlink.net>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, August 23, 2002 3:35 AM
Subject: Re: Opinions are like underwear
>
>
> Otto wrote:
> >
> > Right, remember MalignD's fine post on consistency (14/8/02, Re: MDDM
> > World-as-text).
>
>
> Yes, but my opinion is that we should not expect or value argument
> consistency here.
> I'm not sure we should value argument here. Sometimes I wonder why
> MalignD bothers to read anything posted here. If he is looking for
> argument consistency this is not the place for him. Here we exchange
> ideas, general information about Pynchon and his books. We argue about
> the books and so forth, but this is not a philosophy list.
>

True, but Pynchon's (and Gaddis' too) novels are full of philosophical ideas
and allusions to Plato, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein, Structuralism etc. So to
get behind what this literature is about requires additional reading, and I
appreciate especially your posts on this.

>
>  Reading Doug's posts to figure out what he is arguing and how he is
> making his arguments is a waste of time.
>

Right, I've learned that meanwhile.

> Most of what is posted here is not argument.  If you are looking for
> argument consistency you might begin by looking at the conclusion or
> the conclusions of posts, but most posts don't have any.
>

Agreed, but many nevertheless have.

>
> Why the expectation for argument consistency is just an excuse to bash
> Doug.
>

I wouldn't impute that this is anybody's intention here. When I think that
Toby is wrong about Gaddis this has nothing to do with Doug. Maybe I am
wrong and Toby is right, and this has still nothing to do with Doug.

> Example:
>
> Doug will argue that war is always wrong because it violates the right
> to life.
> Someone may argue that life is not a right but a privilege. Doug may
> say, OK, but war is wrong. No consistency. MalignD jumps on it and we
> get 35 posts that argue about what  "he said" and "what I meant was..."
> and "you are misrepresenting me"  and so on.
>

That's why I argue for copy&paste instead of paraphrasing, when it's only
being used to twist the meaning of what somebody has said.

>
> Conclusion:
>
> A good argument should be internally consistent. But if you are here to
> read good, internally consistent argument, you are in the wrong place.
>

Maybe, but I still think that we should strive for it, and I don't know a
better place for discussing literature where everybody is free to speak.

Otto



__________________________________________________________________

Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de
Möchten Sie mit einem Gruß antworten? http://grusskarten.yahoo.de