Sam told me everything I say is a non sequitur. At first all I could think about was that great cartoon called "Non Sequitur." But then I got mad. What was Sam trying to pull?
My first realization was I had no idea what non sequitur really meant. So I looked it up:
non sequitur (from dictionary.com)
n 1: a reply that has no relevance to what preceded it 2: (logic) a conclusion that does not follow from the premises
Sam might have a point.
But most of my arguments reconsider initial premises. Should government be involved? Is this the correct way to approach the problem? Is there a problem?
So maybe I am a non sequitur, but my arguments are relevant.
I am reminded of a quote from Metropolitan:
Jane Clark: Why should we believe you over Rick? We know you're a hypocrite. We know your "Polly Perkins" story was a fabrication...
Nick Smith: A composite.
Jane Clark: Whatever. And, that you're completely impossible and out of control, with some sort of drug problem and a fixation on what you consider Rick Von Sloneker's wickedness. You're a snob, a sexist, totally obnoxious, and tiresome. And lately, you've gotten just weird. Why should we believe anything you say?
Nick Smith: I'm not tiresome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Two points. First, vanity is bad. I would ask you to consider more carefully what it means before using it again.
Second, I was wrong in saying that all of your comments are non-sequiturs. A more appropriate thing to say would be that you respond to most serious questions of policy not with an logical next step or a question of definition, but by asking an unanswerable normative question. There is nothing that can follow responses like such as these that is about policy, only about philosophy. There is a time and place to debate philosophy and also a time for policy. Policy discussions can only move forward from some kind of common premise. It could be that there are a plurality of opinions and that the resulting policy needs to have a little something in it for everyone. That is a common premise. My frustration has been that you very rarely debate policy with me and are seem much more interested in debating philosphy of the premise. I think there is real value in answer such questions as if the goal were "_____" what would be the best course of action? Perhaps on this you disagree with me.
My goal in life is to make people think. The best compliment I can give is "you make me think."
Well, Sam, you make me think.
Sometimes you get so far ahead, I have to slow you down. I think that is where your frustration with me comes from.
But I am never going to answer a question "if the goal were "___," then... I think that is a intellectually lazy answer. I think laziness is ever apparent in our profession and academia in general.
I am not going to argue semantics with you. But some vanity is necessary. Walk around like a hermit, see how far you get.
A man without pride is not a man. Think about how much vanity it takes to say "I am right."
Post a Comment