Dear Klaus,
There are several things going on here. You dispute my views, but you
also dispute views I do not hold while attributing them to me. Part
of this post is an ad hominem attack, complaining about my person,
rather than my views. You take me to task for answering your question
on why I saw your syllogism as incorrect. Nevertheless, you asked me
to answer for my views and not for someone else. This is such a harsh
and imbalanced note that I intend to wait a while before responding.
Part of the point of contemplating alternative perspectives is to
examine things as we see them, rather than simply as others argue we
ought to see them. That's what you do. I don't recall once in any
debate where you've gotten into my viewpoint or anyone else's -- the
alternative perspective you argue always seems to be Klaus
Krippendorff's alternative perspective. Perhaps that's as it should
be. There's 1,400 of us and room for more than one view.
I think you are one of the more distinguished and respected among us.
I am among those who admire and appreciate your contributions. At the
same time, I speak things as I see them, not as you do. If you
propose something as seemingly untenable to me as some of your
arguments in this thread, it would not matter if you were
thunder-shielded Zeus himself with lightning bolts for arguments. I
would propose the views that seem reasonable to me.
Yours,
Ken
Klaus Krippendorff wrote:
>ken,
>
>it's barely worth my time to engage with you in public debates about things
>that may not matter to other participants in this list, but it bothers me
>and i have been told by others as well how you so often distort what is
>being said and justify your singular point with lengthy citations from
>dictionaries, hide your opinions behind objective terms, as opposed to let
>us enjoy contemplating alternative perspectives on all too settled concepts
>-- which this list does quite well sometimes. not that everyone is always
>clear, profound, and unquestionable.
>
>in the context of my suggestion that history is not produced by cameras but
>by creative historians who write to be read by other historians and
>interested contemporaries, you judged my syllogism faulty. i am quoting you
>quoting me:
>
>>Your concluding "if" takes the form of an incorrect syllogism: "if fiction
>is created, composed, sorted out and rearranged for others to make sense of,
>as i suggested, history is fiction with the claim that it is based on what
>happened."<
>
>In terms of propositional logic "if" is not concluding anything. it is
>followed by a condition. and "is" signifies an equivalence relationship,
>here by definition.
>
>in terms of logic i said: "if A (fiction) = (is [defined as]) X (created,
>composed, sorted out and rearranged for others to make sense of) and as i
>suggested B (history) entails X, then it follows that B (history) = A
>(fiction) with the claim that it is based on what happened.
>
>in reading my assertion you replaced "A = X" by "A entails X " and you
>blamed me for not saying that X is the ONLY entailment of A (and B).
>obviously, i did not say either and in fact i stated the important provision
>that writing history entails the claim that it is based on what happened.
>
>just be a little careful with your judgments and treat you colleagues and
>people on the list with some respect.
>
>klaus
|