Dear Terry — and Klaus,
It was obvious that Terry was referring to my comments comparing him to Cato the Elder. On the one hand, it seemed apt to me, since Terry ended his note to Harold Nelson with the irrelevant reference to his idea that we should all define design as a noun. Then, it seemed apt, because Terry did not simply discuss the matter of definitions — he ended, again, by writing, “The noun-based definition of design seems to fit.... Whooo.”
“Whooo.” That’s a rock-and-rollish way to end a post.
In response, I thought I’d draw on the classics. While it was a personal comparison, though, it was hardly an ad hominem attack. Cato the Elder achieved greatness as a soldier, a statesman, an orator, and he was the first great historian to write in the Latin language. Known for wisdom and probity, he was much admired. Even his political opponents acknowledged his personal virtues. Frugal, hard working, intelligent, skilled in war, effective in public administration, Cato’s life defined what it meant to be a citizen during the great years of the Roman Republic. This is especially the case as Cato was a small-holding farmer born to a common family rather than the nobility.
In the Senate, Cato made a career of speeches concluding with the irrelevant phrase “Carthage must be destroyed.” He died in 149 BC, at the beginning of the Third Punic War. At the end of this war, Carthage was destroyed. Rome had fulfilled Cato’s demand.
Terry should take comfort from this ad hominem comparison with a great thinker. A similar figure of speech might be someone comparing me with Wolfgang Pauli, famed for his grumpy evaluation of research that failed to meet his standards. Now I haven’t done any work comparable to Pauli’s — but Terry hasn’t yet won his war for the definition of design as a noun.
A mild figure of speech comparing Terry with a great historical figure renowned for single-minded dedication did not seem to me an “ad hominem attack.” Perhaps I was mistaken.
If it was an attack, I apologise.
By way of reparation, I invite my friends and colleagues to attack me with similar comparisons to the great and good.
Sincerely,
Ken
Ken Friedman, PhD, DSc (hc), FDRS | Editor-in-Chief | 设计 She Ji. The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation | Published by Tongji University in Cooperation with Elsevier | URL: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/she-ji-the-journal-of-design-economics-and-innovation/
Chair Professor of Design Innovation Studies | College of Design and Innovation | Tongji University | Shanghai, China ||| University Distinguished Professor | Centre for Design Innovation | Swinburne University of Technology | Melbourne, Australia
--
Terry Love wrote:
—snip—
My apologies. That comment in my post did not apply to you.
Your behaviour in avoiding personal attack and focusing on the theory and discussion is exemplary.
I thought it was obvious that in that paragraph of the text that I was referring specifically to Ken's post requesting I explain why both Simon
and Merriam Webster statements about design fail as definitions. There is a 'your' in the paragraph that should be 'Ken's' as in:
'Usually, I avoid responding to posts that are mostly ad hominem attack rather than arguing against the theoretical position presented. In this
case, it makes sense to answer Ken's question about why the definitions of Simon and Merriam Webster are inadequate'.
I'm sorry. The post could have been written better.
—snip—
-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|