h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

There's a little argumentative trick I call the George Orwell Method (it might have a bette name, but I'm anaware of it). It works for arguments in which one is faced with unprovable/subjective information. This is what it's based on:

Tolstoy the famous Russian novelist could not stand Shakespear. He wrote several pamphlets to this effect, one of which happened to be picked up bi Orwell, who wrote a rebuttal of it. Of course the main problem of countering the argument of someone who as sais he doesn't (or does) like something is that it is entirely subjective. You cannot, strictly speaking, prove that something is ugly. What Orwell did however was to prove the arguments put foreward by Tolstoy where malicious in nature, i.e. they deliberately whithold information which the author had to be aware of and lied in orther to give a false inpression of Shakespear's work. This is followed up by exposing the personal motives for Tolstoy's disliking of the Immortal Bard.
This of course does not in itself demonstrate the argument (it's an "ad hominem" fallacy). However if you are trying to counter someone's argument in a field in which certainty of information is unattainable, it might be the best resort.
For an example of this kind or argument read the review the Economist wrote of Oriana Fallaci's book "Rage and Pride".
Go to the economist website, and type in "fear and loathing" in the search bar.
http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1200544&logout=Y

Nietzsche was very good at this method. He pointed out in 'The Gay Science', quite cuttingly, that Kant had descended from a long line of clerks. Nietzsche's translator, Walter Kaufman, pointed out delightfully, that Nietzsche's father and grandfather had been preachers, and before that, it was a long line of butchers.

I think saying "You're only saying that because of X" goes beyond ad hominem. I'll consider it more, though. Hmmm.


GTB

BTW the Tolstoy Vs. Shakespear argument can be read in "in front of your nose: the collected journalism and essays of George Orwell 1945-1950" Which is personally one of my favourite books.

I'm sorry, I don't get the point about buthcers, clerks and preachers. but that's probably because I'm taking math tomorrow...pleas devolp the concept further.

Sure, no problem.

Kant seemed to have a passion for orderly catergorization. A large part of his philosophy was the establishment of what he imagined to be categories of thought. He's not necessarily *wrong*, but one might question whether his approach to dealing with thought is an appropriate one. By pointing out that it figures, that a descendent of clerks would deal with philosophy that way, Nietzsche deftly avoids addressing whether Kant's categories are *valid*, and puts the focus on Kant himself. "Why would someone pursue philosophy *that* way? He must be terribly anal-retentive. What a clerk. *contemptuous snort* "

Turning the same type of analysis back upon Nietzsche himself, one might ask why someone would pursue philosophy the way he did. Looking two generations up his family tree, and finding preachers, one might say that his passion is for drawing morals which excite and inspire his audience to actions of some kind or another. Looking more deeply into his past, one might say that his real passion is for chopping things up. Hence his style of critique, which flayed and dismembered the entire tradition of western thought up to his own time. Calling Nietzsche a butcher doesn't invalidate any of his critiques, but it might give one a giggle, and it might prevent one from being seduced completely by Nietzche's considerable charm.

Looking at the motives behind any piece of writing can be illuminating. They're not always easy to discern.

Very, very good! You mouch redeemed yourself in my eyes, not to mention manifested clear superiority of knowledge over me! I thought you where juest reporting on the insults Nietzche was throwing Kant's way (and couldn't figure out why being the son of a clerk should be disreputable, like "oh, HE's a son of clerk!")! Plus 10 for knowledge, minus half a point for assumingi everyone could get that.