13 examples supplement If you are teaching a course in critical thinking or informal logic, you know that one of the peskiest tasks is finding material for use on assignments, tests, etc. It is our hope that the Examples Supplement to the Informal Logic Newsletter will help take some of that pressure off by providing you with a number of passages for analysis. In many cases, we have included not only the passage but also the analysis provided by the person who submitted it, not, of course, as "the answer" but as a point of de- parture for your own analysis, or those of your students. Altadena Close Reasoner (a project which we have no doubt was inspired by Robert Binkley's earlier submissions from the London Close Reasoner). It bears the title "Altadena" because that is where Johnson was living last year while on sabbatical leave from the University of Windsor. Most of the material in this year's supplement was provided by Ralph H. Johnson :under the rubric of the We would like to encourage our readers to open up their local editions of the Close Reasoner, and indeed take it as something of an obligation to do so. Then, when you've accumulated enough stuff, you can send it along to us so that we can publish it and share it with our readers. 1 BACKGROUND: In an article titled "Metaphysical Purdah," by Grey Morah (Philosophy, July, 1980), the author speculates about what she considers to be the fact that there have been no great female thinkers. She suggests that women are narcissistic, and tend to see the world in terms of its relation to their own presence; and that in doing so, they lack the strong sense of external reality which men have, and are inclined to uncritically project upon the world emotional responses of their own. * She further speculates that women who are active in philosophy have chosen idealistic metaphysics and ethics, in disproportionate numbers, and that their choice of such areas reflects their inherently idealistic (in the metaphysical sense) way of approaching the world. Toward the end of her article, the author seems to me to commit the ad hominem fallacy in a rather interesting way. She says: For the solipsist, the world serves merely as a mirror for himself, a projection of his own existence: the world reflects and testifies to his existence without his having to lift a finger--it is his spontaneous and untutored and effortless creation. Solipsism is delusion on a grand scale, a daringly uncompromising short-cut to absolute power. It is a doctrine to which the losers of this world would naturally cleave, seeing in it an opportunity to compensate, at a transcendental level, for their inadequacies as agents vis a vis an intransigent and hostile world. ANALYSIS: In this passage, it would appear that Morahis trying to discredit the philosophical doctrine of solipsism by suggesting that "the losers of this world" would naturally cleave to the doctrine. There is no evidence given that people who have in fact held solipsistic doctrines have been "losers" (whatever this is supposed to mean); and in any case, even if they had been, that fact would not count, even slightly, towards the falsity of solipsism as a metaphyiscal or epistemological doctrine. (Submitted by Prof. Trudy Govier, Trent University, who adds: "I am grateful to Lorraine Landry for bringing this article to my attention. As readers may infer from my attempt at a synposis, it is a rich source if one is in quest of examples of sloppy reasoning.") 14 2 BACKGROUND: Michael Cassidy, the leader of the Ontario New Democratic Party, had been criticizing the government of Ontario for not doing enough to keep auto workers on the job in Ontario. One day, Cassidy stood up in the Legislature to blast the government for what he said was its failure to obtain small car production in Ontario. Here is a newspaper report of what happened after: Someone said that Cassidy drives a Volkswagen. William Davis, the premier, said that he was certain that Cassidy did not. When another MPP shouted that it was a Peugeot and Cassidy nodded in agreement, Davis and other Conservatives and Liberals mocked Cassidy unmercifully. A sheepish Cassidy admitted later to reporters that he did not have as high a consciousness about the importance of buying Canadian-made cars when he bought the Peugeot in 1974. He said he would sell the Peugeot as soon as his bank manager lets him. ANALYSIS: This seems to me the very sort of reasoning that Govier attempted to sort out in her article, "Worries About Tu Quoque," (ILN, iii. 3) • However, the argument here (if there is one) does not seem to me to fit into either of the patterns she mentions there. Worth noting, too, is that neither Davis nor Cassidy's other critics appears to imply that the policy which Cassidy is advocating (more jobs for Ontario auto workers) is mistaken. What they are doing is pointing out a moral failure in Cassidy. Cassidy's defense seems to acknowledge that failure, though I have to chuckle when he says that he will sell his Peugeot as soon as his bank manager lets him. (R.J.) 3 BACKGROUND: This passage is excerpted from an article "Do Bacteria Think?" by Harold J. Morowitz which appeared in Psychology Today (February, 1981): From the point of view of the biochemical determinist, bacteria do not think. Rather, they respond to stimuli in the environment, using known chemical principles •••. Following this line of reasoning, fungi do not think, protozoans do not think, and mimosa do not think. But if this is true, where does thought as a distinguishable feature arise in evolution? The most consistent materialists say that it never arises. Annelids do not think, planaria do not think, and invertebrates do not think. They respond to signals with a response/output whose usefulness is tested by evolution. [This line of reasoning leads inexorably to the conclusion that Supreme Court justices also do not think, but simply respond to stimuli in a manner that has passed the evolutionary filter for survival. Mentalists--believers in the existence of mind--would argue from the continuity of behavior to the opposite conclusion. Since we are able to move step by step from the Supreme Court justices, who we know can think, down the evolutionary ladder to successively simpler forms, then some sort of psychic activity must be ascribed even to the lowliest organism, bacteria. We are left with the dilemma of having to accept one of two conclusions: either bacteria think or Supreme Court justices do not. The only way out is to assume that at some level of organization between microbe and man, thought arose as a new phenomenon.] (Submitted by Prof. Trudy Govier, who says that the portion in brackets contains "the clearest example of a conceptual slippery slope I have ever seen.") l 15 4 BACKGROUND: Here is an argument on the subject of animal rights from Lewis Carroll's "Some Popular Fallacies About Vivisection" (in The Complete Works of Lewis Carroll, New York: Random House, pp. 1190-91): -- ---- - --- ---- In discussing the "rights of animals," I think I may pass by, as needing no remark, the so-called right of a race of animals to be perpetuated, and the still more shadowy right of a non-existent animal to come into existence. The only question worth consideration is whether the killi~g of an animal is a real infringement of a right. Once grant this, and a reductio ad absurdum is imminent, unless we are illogical enough to assign rights to animals in proportion to their size. Never may we destroy, for our convenience, some of a litter of puppies--or open a score of oysters when nineteen would have sufficed-- or light a candle in a summer evening for mere pleasure, lest some hapless moth should rush to an untimely end! Nay, we must not even take a walk, with the certainty of crushing many an insect in our path, unless for really important business! Surely all this is childish. In the absolute hopelessness of drawing a line anywhere, I conclude (and I believe that many, on considering the point, will agree with me) that man has an absolute right to inflict death on animals, without assigning any reason, provided that it be a painless death, but that any infliction of pain needs its special justification. ANALYSIS: Carroll first argues that it would be a gross violation of common moral belief to think that all animals including even the insects had a right which was infringed when one killed them. He then asserts that it would be illogical to allot a right to life to animals on the basis of their size. He asserts, with no justifica- tion, that it is absolutely hopeless to "draw a line" anywhere to distinguish, on some basis, between those animals which do and those which do not have a right to life. And he concludes that man has an absolute right to inflict death on any animal, provided that the death is a painless one. There are several problems with this line of argument. First of all, Carroll seems to base his case on a false trichotomy: either no animals have a right to life, or all do, or an arbitrary line--based on size or something else equally unsatisfactory--is used to distinguish those which do from those which do not. He never argues that any line drawn would be arbitrary, but merely assumes this. The false trichotomy then amounts to a problematic assumption. The next problem is that even if we were to grant Carroll his claim that it is hopeless to draw a non-arbitrary line, it would not follow that no animals have a right to life. For, from the fact that a precise delineation cannot be given, it does not follow that all items are within one of the two classes one wished to delineate. This is what I would call a fallacy of assimilation. (Thanks to Prof. Trudy Govier, Trent University, for submitting this example and the analysis.) 5 -L.A. TI~ES Clark Criticism The criticism of Justice William P. Clark Jr.'s nOmination to be de- ~ puty secretary of state ("Clark Un- qualified for State Dept. Post, Democrats Say," Times, Feb. 3) emanates from those who worship at the Shrine of Rote Recall-as though life's problems were like a big crossword puzzle, instead of an .. alytical. That a big collection of miscel- laneous facts on every subject un - 71 der the sun available at the tip of /' ~ the tongue is not suffiCient for suc- cess has been well illustrated by a recent occupant of the White House. By the same token, it is not a ne- Ce88tJ17l element of success: a fact ~ also well illustrated by two men, ----" Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., and Albert Einstein. Holmes said he 'did not know facts-he knew the 7Mlning of facts. Einstein, when asked what was the speed of sound, answered he did not know, but that he did know where to look that in- formation up, should he need it. ROBERT E. BURKE Feb. 10, 19~¥8dena 16 Altadena Close Reasoner This first paragraph distorts the criticisms made of Clark. The critics on the Senate foreign relations committee were dismayed by Clark's lack of knowledge about world affairs (he didn't know the leader of South Africa by name, I believe) and U.S. commitments. The question was not, therefore, his inability to recall; it was that he did not know these basic things, yet was nominated for the second highest post in the State Department. Hence, straw man here. The reference here is a bit vague, probably to Nixon. But it's irrelevant, since Clark's critics surely weren't arguing that a big collection of facts was a sufficient condition for success. Straw man, again. They were arguing that a working knowledge of the area of foreign affairs ought to be a criterion that any candidate for high level State Department jobs should satisfy. (Percy, the chairman, said after the confir- mation of Clark, that this must never be allowed to happen again--or words to that effect.) The argument here is closer to the issue. But does it succeed? It relies on comparing Einstein's success as a physicist and Holmes's success as a jurist to Clark's potential for success as a State Department official. The argu- ment is: These men did not have important basic facts (about their areas) at the tip of their tongue and yet they succeeded. But can the role of factual knowledge in law and science be compared with its role in the affairs of the State Department? (A side issue here is this: If Holmes knew the meaning of facts, he appar- ently must also have known the facts, too.) I think the analogy is faulty, but to show this would take a lot of work. We would need to know just what Clark's position in the State Department would actually require of him; and of course, criteria of success in such a position are by no means as clearcut as they are in jurisprudence and science. 6 What's the Fuss? Handgun control doesn't neces- sarily mean taking the guns away from everybody. It can mean simply to license these weapons, making. it unlawful to own one without proper registration. . ... After all, what's the big deal? You need a license to get married. You need a license for your dog. You need one for your vehicle and your business. You need permits for nearly everything. Nobody seems to suffer too much. Drivers must meet certain stand- ards in order to ob in a . ~~r~'s a resu ,t ousan s 0 ~ve So why not Similarly license handguns? It'll cost a little, be a lit- tle inconvenient, and maybe it'll save a few lives. It really is the least we can do. . T. R.CASsEL Los Angeles 17 Altadena Close Reasoner This argument for the licensing of handguns attempts to appeal to our sense of consistency by showing that li- censing of handguns is a practice which would not differ substantially from many already accepted. It goes this way: You accept the licensing of people who wish to get married, of dogs, of businesses, and of drivers. Why not then also accept the licensing of handguns. This is a good example of an argument which tries to lead the audience from premises which they (presumably) accept to a conclusion which (presumably) many of them would like to oppose. Here the arguer lapses, committing the fallacy Kahane woul d call lI un known fact. II How do we count deaths that did not occur? But perhaps the point can be saved, for if reworded, most would (presumably) accept it: If we did not require drivers to obtain ~ license, there would be more deaths and injuries than there are now. I be- Tfeve this is true, but am not sure how one would go about demonstrating it, other than by appealing to people's basic intuitions and common sense. ~ the argument successful? Are we being inconsistent if we concede the state's legitimate right to ask us to obtain licenses for marriages, businesses, dogs, and driving cars and yet deny its legitimacy to require that handguns, too, be licensed? The answer revolves, I believe, around the question of why we have conceded the state the right to require licenses in these other areas. Gener- ally speaking, the answer would be that the state has the right and the duty to enact laws which maintain and preserve the welfare ot its citizens. Taking this angle, one would have to concede the similarity; for if the state could control the use of handguns by licensing, that would seem to be a step which would enhance the welfare of its citizens. However, here the objection will be made that requlrlng handguns to be licensed would not result in such control, because of the difficulties in enforcing such a law. One might argue that it would be about as effective as requiring licenses for dogs. There are immense difficulties in enforcing such a law. (By the way, why is there a requirement that dogs be licensed? How is the welfare of the populace preserved by such a law? It seems rather designed to allow the state to make a few extra bucks.) There are, I think, too many complexities that are not dealt ~/ith by this argu- ment for it to be deemed successful. 7 _ ... F.ebruary 18, 1981 Los Angeles Times- ~r8 to The.T Predicting-Quakes Around the turn of the Century . Mother Nature was totJr!nJ the· C8IIDtry and ~ in San P'riDcis. co. She was horrified when she saw so many dirty ramshackle buildings. She then decided to shake up the town real good and hope the people would rebuild better looking build- ings. So, in 1906 she really shook up the town. When she saw how Dice the new town looked she decided to . do the same to other towns that need a "dressing up." She couldn't decide how often to do this so she put numbers 1 to 25 into a hat and drew one out. It hap- pened to be number 19, so that was how often she would hit some town and let the folks rebuild into some- thing bet~er. She added 19 to 1906 and came up with 1925, and that is when she hit Santa Barbara. She was real pleased with ·her system and to find out when to hit the next town, she put down 1925 and then she got mixed ap with the 19. Instead of just add- Ing it to 1925 she put the one under the 9. and subtracted-coming up with 8, which she added to 1925. That came to 1933, and that is when she hit Long Beach. Right away she noticed how soon that came after the Santa Barbara hit so she knew she had to be more careful with her figures in the future. Next she carefully added 19 to 1933 and came up with 1952 and that is when she" hit Bakersfield. Now she knew she was on the right track. Next she added 19 to 1952 and . came up with 1971, and that is when she hit San Femando-Sylmar. So, unless Mother Nature screws up her figures again the next big quake should come in 19 plus 1971 or 1990. OTTO C. HANSEN Sunland 18 Altadena Close Reasoner This sounds like the author is playing the "tongue in cheek" game--the anthropomorphism is so blatant. Yet one suspects that the author is rather proud of his calculations, and very well may believe that the next quake will come in 1990. I don't know what to do with a passage like this. There is an attempted correlation using a 19-year basis for major quakes in California. The one exception (the Long Beach quake coming only 8 years, instead of 19, after the 1925 Santa Barbara quake) is explained away-- Mother Nature added incorrectly! The whole thing is rather ludicrous and pseudo-scien- tific, and probably charity demands that we treat this as not-an-argument. 19 8 Altadena Close Reasoner Part B / Monday, !f'dt J3, 1911 * . £ o..rAbby War Experience More Than Semantics By ABIGAIL VAN BUREN DEAR ABBY: You were right the first time and need not have apologized for using the term "concentration camps" in connection with the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. I was one of 110.000 Americans of Japanese descent who were iW,Fned in what was euphemistically re- ferred to as a • war relocation center" for the duration of the war. in no way belittles the experience of the Nazi : Holocaust victims. That their concentration camps were also death camps and ours were not is hardly cause for , patriotic pride. Sen. Hayakawa may be a recognized au- thority on semantics. he c n be co . i3ackground: I don I t know what Hayakawa said or wrote, but he apparently stated or implied that the camps used to detain Japanese-Americans during WWII were not concentration camps. The writer here de- fends the assertion that the so-called "war relocation centers" were indeed con- centration camps. I think his argument is strong. Ad Hominem? One might think this is ad hominem, but whether it is or not depends on the con- text of Hayakawa's remarks. If he claimed to be or posed as a spokesman for Japanese-Americans, then the writer is attacking his credentials and credibility --which is entirely legitimate. Then the question becomes: how do the facts men- tioned by the writer bear on Hayakawa's credibility? Does the fact that he was born in Canada and spent the war in Chicago detract from his credibility as a spokesman (if indeed he put himself in that posture). I think not. The fact that he was born in Canada is not relevant here. A great many Japanese- Americans were born elsewhere;~e point is that Hayakawa is an American of Jaoanese descent--and a rather well-known one to boot. ~Ihat about the fact that he spent the war in Chicago? This means that he had no personal experience of the concentration camps; but is such an experience a requirement or necessary condition of his knowing the meaning of the term? Hardly. So the attack on Hayakawa's credibility fails, it seems to me. But that does not, of course, mean that Hayakawa is right here; for the argument produced by the writer and seconded by Abby settles the issue. This exchange is interesting for two reasons. First, it is an instance where a definition does playa central role in an argument; and such instances are far from commonplace. Second, the connotation of the term "concentration camp" has become so closely identified with those used by the Third Reich that the meaning of the term (as this exchange illustrates) has almost been lost. Finally, one might note that Abby makes a perfectly legitimate appeal to author- i1t in seconding the writer's argument. 9 To I~ Edittm: Thomas Sheehan's otherwise illuminating dis- cussion of editorial problems in Heidegger's Ge:;omtousgabe suffers from at least two laN~ which bear correcting. -. In the first place, Erelgnis mearu "eyent" thro:Jgh much of Heidegger's writing, as it does in normal German. To cite it as an ex- ample of arcane te:minology on the basis of Heidegger's speculatioru about its etymology (cignen) is to ovcr-confusc a ~urposedly non- technical presentation. Heid~gger should not be made more difficult than he is. Se.:ondly, in the effon to sound disabU!;ed about Heidegger's merits as a philosopher, an intelligible inclination given the absurdity of many Heideggeriaru and the ignorance of Heidegger's opponents (e.g. Ayer and Ed- wards), Sheehan ends up distorting Heideg- ger's real contribution to p~ilosophicaI dd'ale. ,SurelY, if HeideHer's "best" were il:n'!c:d to being a "brilliant reader of the hilton' of philosophy" or a "revolutionary !nterpreter" of "man's relation to the pres~ ence of thing!!," then one would be hard pres,ed to see what aU the fuss surroundin!.. HciJC:f.ger is about. He would be no different from any other brilliant scholar or revolu- tional} pS}'i.hologisl_ In fact, Hcidegger's true philosophical ':.erits arc only emerr,ing now that he i~ being 11·, •• 1.1\ :\:" .... ,. "",}:n 11\.(' 2 \(Ir;tbllbr\, difft"frnt 20 Altadena Close Reasoner BEING TRUE TO HEIDEGGER To the£d;tors; As teachers of philo,ophy who halie been reading and assigning Heidegger for some years, we were grateful for the publication tN),R, December 4J of Professor Thomas Sheehan's informed and valuable criticism of the Heidegger Gesamlausgabe, We demur, however, at Professor Sheehan'S concluding paragraph concerning the Harper & Row Je- rics of translations of Heidegger. This series has h~en enormously valuable. Scholarship in Ihe English-speaking world owes a great debt 10 the \'ariou~ translators, and to Harper & Ro,," for its support of their efforts. All of us have, like Professor Sheehan, one quarrel or another with one or more of these transla- tions. But such quarrels over details should not ob,cure the fact that Heidegger has been \er) well ,crne'd. Wahout the selness efforts of the late Professor Glenn Gray and his col- !;;boraton, this immensely important and dif- ficuh philo,opher would simply not have brcn available to the English-speaking world. Stanle) Cavell, Harvard University; B uberl Dreyfus, University of California, Berkeley; Karsten Harries, Yale University; John Haugeland, Universit) of Pittsburgh; Da\'id Ho), Barnard Collt'ge: Richard Rort~, Princeton University This paraphrase of Sheehan's position is substan- tially accurate. Sheehan's actual words were: "At his worst Heidegger tended to disappear into clouds of verbal incense stoked with etymologies of Old High German words. At his best he was a brilliant reader of the history otphllosoiihYand ~ creative and revolutionary interpreter of man's relation to what he called 'the presence of things.'" (New York Review of Books, December 4, 1980, p. 39; emphasis added.) Prof. Domingo's claim is clear: that Sheehan's view "ends up distorting Heidegger's real contri- buti on to phi 1 osophy. " continued ... fran. ... I WriOhdid. bf· H ......... Among Clther things: He questioned the f l'un- dationahst ~oal of post-Cartesian philo~;)ph)'. He undermined phenomenology. He con- structed the first "'iable model of h~man beha\ior v.hich d~ not rely 011 the c,'n2t'pts of mind, soul or mental represemati.:m.l. He "'Tested philosophy aWa)· from an exclusive concentration on cognition to an in\estigation of emotive being. He re"ived Aristotelian category theory as an issue. He pierced through the sham of philosophi:al logic as a replacement for de\.-alued epistemology. He miefined ontology and broadened it beyond' unique concern with existence criteria. He showed up the so-called Clnio10gical paradoxes as ~:l5ed on fa~lt~ ~"':';~":~f He united the theory of time .. ;lh .~~~ rn::,',,'phy of history. He re\i\ed medic'al philohlrhy as significant Tor the modern ... o~lj 1:-) f~e-eing it from the concept of God. He firs: er. vis;oned I critique of pl-Jlosophy as a '" hClie from a philosophical standpoint. He showed that the Aristotelian category system ap;:llied t.:> only a certain sort of entiI} and de,i;ed al~err.atjve category systems to supplant and subsume it. In the process, he invented the notion of I m.Q!K.. of being. which represents the first reU advanq in category theory since the Middle ~. He leveled the picture theory of mean- ing, thus opening alternati,,·es to cor- respondence as a theory of uuth. He devalued the notion of hierarchy in the theory of the sciences. showing that each science is autonomous and its methodology is object-relative. He first distinguished between interpretation and theorization in the theory of science. He provided a conceptual frame\Oork for the social sciences. He redefined the nOli on of essence so it escapes from the Aristotelian stranglehold of unalterability and deter- minateness through a causal nexus. Astound- ingly. the list could continue. In the light of these basic contributions. belief that dating Heidegger's texts ",ould af· fect our understanding of. him seems exag- gerated. University of Notre Dame Notre Dame, ladialla Willis Domingo 21 Altadena Close Reasoner Now Prof. Domingo presents a long list of what he takes to be Heidegger's IItrue philosophical merit. II ~Prof. Sheehan will later take issue with this ... Ic1aim. ~(I thought this distinction was Spinoza's!) 10 Thomas Sh~ha8 replies: The demurral of Professor Cavell and his col- leagues seems to blur two very dis tine: issues: the selfless efforts of translators and publish- ers (the fourth and snemh sentence;; of their letterl and the quality of the resultam transla- tions (the third, fifth, and sixth sentences). Regarding the first issue. I heartily agree that, given the difficulty of Heidegger's language 'and thought. the dedication of the late Professor Gray and his collaborators and the support of Harper 6; Row deserve our thanks. and I have said so ehe", here (Re- search in Phenomenology, Vol. IX, Humani- ties Press. 1980. pp. 225-228). But the quality of the translations and the degree to which Heidegger and scholarship have been served by them are questions that can be decided only through a line-by-line comparison of the English with the German. I do nOI thinl.: Heidegger is served al all by the unacknowledged omissions of partS of his texi or the invention of senten~ he never wrole. This is nOI a Quarrel O\'Cf de:ails but an outright scandal. Nor is he mu;:h ser.~ by the errors lhal mar so many pages of the English texts. no maner ",ho publi,hes them. Scores of these errors are documented Jr. two papen procmed to the Heidegger Conference in 1977 and 1978 and in Ne .... ScholasliclSm. Vol. S3. No, 4, August 1979, pp. S~S44. But I do think Heidegger is well served in- deed by the excellmt translations that David Krell and others have made for Harper &: Ro\llo in the lasl years. These set high stand- ants of accuraC)' and allow us to unite gratitude 10 the translators with confidence in tbewad. continued ... ProI.... Damiap's liner ,,"en from ..-e ..... 01 ita OWIl, at least one or them major. I. No, in Heideger's technical usaae Enilnis does not mean simply "event" bul rather "appropriation" (roughly: emerJl:ftCle into intelli~ibility). It is his imerpretation of the urtderl~~iii~' 'ineaninr of the' Gr'eek words c/.lnami.< and kinesis. To be ignuram of that fact i~ to risk dis· tortinf He-jdegge:'s main contribution te phil· os(lphy, and no eqra·canonical :exi;:on can make up for that defe-el. But in order to kno ... the Greek-not the German-origins of the ... ord Ereignis, (lne must have studied both Heideg$er's essay on Aristotle, which is already published. and his last Marburg seminar on the Physics, which is yet to ap- pear in the Gesomlousgo~. Given his ap- parent misreading of Heidegger's key term, is Professor Domingo quite sure that he has nothing basic to learn from a proper edition (and dating) of such texts? 2. I think that Proie,>0r D:'mingo m;,;00k the genre of my article. To adapt !>1rs. Grogan's words in U~)'sses: When I .... rites philosophy, I writes philosophy, and .... hen I writes book reviews, I writes book re\·iews. And I publishes 'em in different journals. Since this was a book review rather than a w.ilo;ophv article, I thought it proper to ie!. lieidegger himself state ... hat he thou!.!ht his "best" was. In his notes toward a preface for the Geso';'lousg;b; he summarized the core of his work as follows: "Thought as the rela· t.~on to being as presence: Parmenides, Heraclitus: noein, logos." That simple, straightforward phrase, which I adapted for my review, fairly outlines the whole of Heidegger's thinking, ",hereas Professor Do- mingo's eighteen theses fill in some, but only ~e, of the blanks. In a brief book re~ maybe this mailer is de guslibus. Do you prefer the master's modest but wmprehensive summar) or the disciple's elaborate but un· sorted laundry list? 3. The accuracy or not of Professor Do· mingo's list of Heidegger's accomplishments can be judged on its own merits. Although I find much of it impressive, I have some hesitations. . .. Did Heidegger "undermine" phenomenol· ogy, or lead it back to its origins? (As late as 1969 he still insisted that his work was phenomenological.) Where and how could he have possibly freed medieval philosophy from the concept of God? And is it likely that he devised any "alternative category systems" when in fact he adjudged the whole of KOlegorienlehre to be a SeiendheilSlehn? Questions like these and the one about Ereignis leave me just a bit skeptical in face of the claim that Heidegger's "true philo- sophical merits" are only beginning to emer,e now that he is being read by Pro- fessor Dominlo and his coIlea,ues. 22 Altadena Close Reasoner Straw Man Here Prof. Sheehan is guilty of straw man. The genre of his piece is not the issue. Domingo took issue with Sheehan's statement about what Heidegger's best (i.e. philosophical merits and achievements) were. Notice the non-sequitur here: "Since it was a book review rather than a philo- sophy article, I thought it proper to let Heidegger himself state what he thought his 'best' was." There is something curious here, as though when one is writing a book review one must not engage in interpretation but only quote the philo- sopher himself. This becomes doubly curious when one notices the rather large discrepancy between Heidegger's summary of the core of his work and Sheehan's alleged "adaptation" (or translation) of it. But in any event Sheehan is defending a position other than the one he should be defending and so is guilty of straw man. The claim Sheehan cites from Heidegger concerns the ~ or essen- tial focus of the work. ~Jhereas Sheehan's "adap- tation" of it may fairly be taken to be a kind of assessment of the significance of that work. It was the latter point that Prof. Domingo took issue with. Sheehan's rebuttal does not meet Domingo head-on and is thus unsatisfactory. His reference to Domingo's list as "elaborate but unassorted laundry 1 ist" is snarky. 23 Altadena Close Reasoner .. -:" . ~os An~eles'Times, Masch" 9. jq8~ ',--",-,,~~,~~ .. ..... ,,- ..... :~. : --, " .. -... ". .--: ~The Auto Workers.' Stake':" . ....... ". ;:' One of the ariuments made by those who want verY clearly to the industry's problems. It was one . 'to try to help the U.s. auto industry by limiting tlDng to have rising labor costs throughout the :japanese ear imports is that the foreign manufac- American industry when the Big Three auto ,turers, thanks to cheaper ~ costs. enjoy a com- ,makers were fighting for market shares primarily petitive advantage- in the American market. If among themselves. In that-case labor costs weren't .labar. costs were comparable. the argument rtm8, much of a competitive factor. But now foreign cars·. Japanese cars would cost· a lot more and so. . account for about 25% of the American market. presumably. would be less attractive to American . Now labor costs have indeed become one competi- eonsumers. ' " ',' ,,'.'. ' ' . tiVe consideration. . ,,' :; It's true that the gap in the wages between Jap- In the effort to save Chrysler Corp. from extinc- · anese and American auto workers is'large and has tion. the United Auto Workers union has agreed to ~~.uvtol04%inl980.~wag~areonly .. a SI.O'1 bWion cut in wages and . benefits. in part of totallaQor' costs. Add. in ~ fringe benefits . exchange for a voice in company management and · that-Japanese Workers ge~ and a rough compara- the chance for future profit-sharing~ The talk in bility emergs Wbat has distorted the wage dif- the ,industry· now is that GM and Ford are also . Terence is the effect of American inflation., . . planning to' ask for union agreement on c:uttIng The average American auto worker now makes. labor costs. more than $21.000 a year. That's ,about $10 an hour When both wages and benefits are considered. for a 4O-hour week; but to that must be added auto workers do about halt again. as well as others benefit. costs that bring the total to about S19-an in the industrial sector. For all tha~ an average hour. Among those' benefits'are an industry aver- . wage- of S21.000 is. not, these days, e:z;actly a. age of 14 paid company holidays a year plus anoth- , princely sum, and it is a harsh thing to ask workers er 8' or 9 days of paid personal holidays, as well as to slow down or even giVe up some of the gains four weeks of vacation. after 20 years and various that they have made over the years. Harsher stilL othes' company-paid fringe benefits; like m~ though. is the prospect of even further declines in insurance. ' '." .,." . l,' .. ' an industry already suffering grievously from a In September.:I9'19. a, new, auto. contract was '-'. decade and more of bad management decisioD& signed. General Motors estimated that over its . The auto iild1lStr'1 needs tens of billions of new three-year life the contract would raise labor costs . investment dollars in comiIltyears to play tec!mo- by 33%. In fact. with .the contract period only halt logit:al catch-up. Auto workers have a ~ stake gone. GM says its labor costs have already risen by in he1ping'to meet that goal. , ' 26%. The big reason is inflation. Auto workers . bave for some time had in their contracts a provi- sion for quarterly cost-at-living adjustments in continued ... pay. Last year. at Ford and GM. these payments . U M tal Heal h came to about $1.400 per worker. In addition, ever' p . en ' , t . since .1948. auto workers have had Virtually auto- matic 3" annual raises that have"supposedly· been . " . - ~ .;~ Ued'toproduc:tivity. .'.... .. " _,' If-they were not aware of it before., inmatet at FIfteen years ago GM's costs fer labor amoun~' public.mental hospitals now know that they must to 29.5~ of ita revenues. By 1979, labor costswerer do their bit to help get the federal budget under 34" of its revenues. There was more. LaboI!.,' control They got the word from no less an author.- agreements in the auto-parts industry tend to fol- itythan the U.s. Supreme Court. low the pattern set in the manufacturing industry. . Under the government's Supplementary Securi- In. 1965. GM's payments to its parts suppliers came ty Income program. public mental hospital to 45.5% of its total revenues.. By 1979. the figure . patients, most of them destitute. once received $25 had risen to 53%., . -=- . '-. a morith:. wbich they squandered on coffee. macks, Japanese auto workers are indeed paid consider- telephone ca.Us. and other items like paperback ably less per hour than are American auto work- books. But Congress in 1972 ~ a law that er& But. when generous fringe benefits are added' denied them the $25 monthly allowance generally in-including company housiDg-md adjustments. paid to persons in private mental institutions foriD1IaUonaremade. total labor costsinJapan are receiving Medicaid funds-if their inmates can· very close to those in the United States. Moreover. show financial need.. productiVity in th« Japanese industry' is higher A federal. judge held that the law was unconsti- thaD in this country. Part of the reason is that in tutioDally disc:rimina.tor. but the Supreme Court Japan bonus pay is tied to productivity increases. last week ruled otherwise by a 5-4 margin. Writ- Part of the reason also is the'extraordinary system' 1ng for the majority, Justice Harry A. Blackmun. in · of job securitY and worker loyalty that prevaiLs in a; flaW' of felicitous phrases; said he was sympa- Japanese industry. .' :, . thet1c to, the c:laims of the indigents. but decided U.s. auto -Workers are near the peak amoDg' . that. the action of Congress was justified '1n view induat1ia1 wase earners. Of course it would be dead of budgetary constraiDts.'· wrong to contend that high labor costs are the- Handing out this largess to an estimated 102.000 _ chiefreasonfortheAmericanautoin~strou- _ paUents in public mental hospital8 would have bles. But labor cost increases that have not been drained away about S30 million a year from the tied to: ,real productivity gains have contributed federal government'3 $615.8 b1ll1on budget. . : ,: 11 ·.flA ....... and u.s. Im~rt$ , ' , TtdI II in ftIPODSe to YOUl'edit:or- ill' (Mareh 9), "The AutoWorktrs' S*." The auto workers' futuN is indeed at ltake, yet t¥~ =:=_&eC:; theJI &: m mariet. ·.:·'fttisia by virtue of" their .. ermpgdity tax srAtm that delivers their compactS to e United States 'vittUallytax~free at 15% to 20% . '.~ than retail in Japan. On the otheir band a U.S. export to Japan , .. will sell for 40%: more than in our . kIcal sllowrooms .. . Our indUstrY and the United Auto ' .. ,Workers union are powerless to do aDYtbinir to counter the present $1,- · 500 priti advant.qe held by the im- ports here, thanks to this tax system in Japan that is designed specifically to promote exports. A whole new generation of fuel- eificienf and, attractively styled U.S. cars are now in production; yet their success for the auto makers is very much in doubt due to the imports' price advantage. .. It is now time for our lawmakers to review this Japanese tax system, which encourage!; exports, provides jbbs, strengthens their currency and keeps out imports. This sounds as ~:ii~,,~~andWeCOWd .' . G. S. CftIb!lOl!f . Las AbQnitoI • At an Nqerican, I resent your IqptriQtic IIt.aQt;C regarding the · ~imports into this country. . e there will always be impor- tant differences that are needed to explain quantity and quality, I don't think yOU[ negtive approach does much to ~ngtben the bindiiiB that is necessary for Americans to get thin&I together. . In my opinion, your editorial po- sition aids and comforts the wheel- · en aDd dealers in America who sell a product that does not represent either our· Americal1 industries or their workers. As long as 12 24 Altadena Close Reasoner Los Angeles Times, March 27, 1981 Comment: It is interesting to compare these two responses to the Times editorial. The first comes from someone at least moderately informed on the issues, while the second largely cloaks itself in the rhetoric of nationalism and patriotism . BLIND LOYALTY continued ... 13 • " .. "'~U: y. edltGdd ~ ... 1M et.MlJmtc reuty facing Detroit: .". .. industry needs tens of ~.Ofliew investment dollars in coudnI yean to play technological cat.cb';qp." PuiilliftBly, on the very same day you once acam give tacit editorial ipproVJl to Pre$ident Reagan's pro- poaed .. billion increase in milita- ry spendirJB an increase above and beyOnd President Carter's proposed fiscal year 1982 increase of $25 bil- lion. That amounts to a total pro- poeed increase of $51 billion in mili- tary spending for 1982. , Is there any won t.J tmprnvement rose onl: 8.6% --~ over a recent 12-month period, ac- L....-__ . _____________________ _ cording to tbe Labor Department. That W88~ less than the inflation me. This compared. to rental, up 8.7": presetiption drugs, up 9.7%: collep tuition, up 12.1%: newspa- per .co8ts. up 12.7%, and hospital IQOIIB, up 14.6% What hurts auto sales now are high interest rates and declining worker purchasiDC power . .. ' ._. ,PAUL»'. ~",' > 15 Ilk Los Angeles Times March 27, 1981 Student Aid 26 Altadena Close Reasoner SLIPPERY SLOPE \V.IIm-t~ )Q t· f f t :::!mdiscontinZNJ::rity ues 10n S?-~: ~wwfi . B· What prec1sely was Reagan's proposal? tion was tbiit mere are more enough funds available to these stu- denw through other sourees of stu,: dent aid. Assumption ~ question of fact: This is true only if student-ard through the fed- eral government basic student aid program is the only effective source of student aid. Yet now, in addition w drastically reducing . guaranteed loan w stu-. denw, his Adrriinistration bas frozen all applications for granw this com- ing fall under the basic student aid prosram. He is effectivelyeliminat- iDI all other sources Of student aid. It's the gOod old double-bind I would want to check this out. It seems prima game.aeistakingaWaYfromIOW-} facie preposterous to discontinue social security income studenw the incomes SW!!'- d B h h· anteed, them by the contributions of ~ayments guarantee to persons. ut per aps t 1S ~~ nfyw dead parents to the Social 1 S SO. Se«mrit.y . System, and at the same time burdening them with addition- ill educational costs. The result: These students will not receive th, education promised . them. they and tb* omany will . t:.trt%in:wt.:;-;Uh: .... 1. iD mainwm~ the class P-iJO attractive an USifiiI to ~his~ . . , ..... ~ANW.KAHN - Studio City . LI This is a slippery slope argument culminating in what appears to be an ad hominem criticism. The steps are: (1) Social-Security payments cut off to surviving children--(2) these children will not receive the education promised them (Who promised them an education? The government? Their parents? Education as right of all or as privilege?)--(3) they and their progeny will be locked into low- income bracket--(4) Reagan will be successful in maintaining the class structure so attractive and useful. (4) is not really the end of the slope but rather an attempt to persuade that Reagan's policy is unsatisfactory because his motive is the maintenance of a class structure. (Low level Marxist analysis?) The slope can be attacked both at the connection of ( 1) and (2) and of (2) and (3). Cutting off social security payments will mean that these children will not receive an education ~ if it is granted that this is the only means available to these students. That returns to the question of fact mentioned above; but I am quite sure that this claim is, broadly speaking, false; there are scholarships, state-aid programs; and people do work at menial jobs to support themselves while getting a college degree. The link between (2) and (3) is also questionable. A great many people in high income brackets have never had formal education (this is largely true in industries like television/ record business/auto employees/etc). 27 Altadena Close Reasoner BACKGROUND: In late February, 1981, President Reagan flew to his Santa Barbara ranch from Washington at a cost estimated to be c.$52,OOO. In the context of Reagan's budget-slicing and talk of restraint, this upset a number of citizens, many of whom expressed their discontent in letters. Many argued that such an expenditure was not justifiable on such grounds as these: (1) Reagan should be expected to practice what he preaches; (2) Camp David is close by, is available, and would have cost the taxpayers less money. A second round of letters appeared in the Los Angeles Times on 16 March 8, 1981. Herewith an analysis of some of them: .... 'sTripand theEconomy al ComPlaints! Camp&aiatl! Com- plaints! ' . "Beapn's Trip to California" (Letters, Feb. 26) has suddenly be· come a nuQor issue along with iDfJa- tion, unemployment, and hf8b in- terest rates. When the . tient (die ttme. =4:a-m:-=r; . & be 10, CIiDj rou- :-JfIareaident Reapn doe8. the job for the country he pJqIOIIe8 to do, he deserves anything we can stve bim, iDcludiDg a ranch on the DlOOI1 with a riD8 around it And free trav- Exhibit a/ Faulty Analogy Broadly speaking, this is an argument, relying on an analogy which is not apt. In the first place, people seem generally willing to try the prescription. Arguments against Reagan's visit to California cannot be compared to haggling about fees, but rather to complaints about the integrity of the doctor. But more importantly, economic management and medical diagnosis are not comparable; the latter is much less arbitrary than the former, generally speaking. And it can always be pointed out that a great many "patients" did not select this doctor, and do not care for his prescrip- tions. This is an attempt to persuade the critics to shut up and let Reagan do his thing, but on rational examination, it fails to provide any reasonable basis. el, too! (I have an idea that the ~~~many~~ Here M.R. attacks the attackers by suggesting ~ feel the same way ~ the that they are moaners and groaners and bored ~uh:~~~) nrWith their daily routines, and haven't done v m anything themselves to make things better. . But these remarks are ad hominem, for the ~new suit. Or anew personal situation of the complainers is not .iiiiiiiOIiIle or iff sfWJ:Y iIi6Ut 11 h . h " h' ;a;;~to~nii~~_ rea y ~o t e ~o1nt; t ~ quest10n 1S: w at 1S KONROI~ wrong w1th the1r compla1nts or arguments ~~ against Reagan? continued ... 17 b/ • A lIP tltat _ always eIisted in our IOvelDmeIlt beeome8 clearer with the Net. 'P""'ID*D' and "'II'" .,...,.. of the new Admin- istration. ReaPU', Santa Barbara trjpI and bJaney'a extraYII'Pt redecoration of the White Bovr mekiUliOues- tionabI" cJeaJ*b' yast lIP in aper- ienee hetp:iep gyr pybUc ~ and tlvr- the" call .. COlU¢ituentS: Those .id Wasbinston have litile understanding of what. middle America experience8,let alone what it is like to live at the poverty level. It's 80 easy to say "tiPten up our belts" when the speaker can easily afford to spend more for gas, milk and other necessities. Clearly, belt- tightening is an experience that af· fects only those who suffer from the law, not t.boee who make it. I think an appropriate learning and mellowing experience would be provided for our Wlislators. if they were to live for one month each year at the poverty level. If this \ were a requirement of public office, I believe we would find politicians eonsklerably more sensitive to their COI1iItituencies. ALLAN RABINOWITZ LoaAnples 28 Altadena Close Reasoner Exhibit bl A.R. is using the Reagan visit as a jumping off point to argue for the existence of a gap between the government (executive & legislators) and propose a remedy for it. (I must say I have some emotional sympathy for the proposal, though one can imagine all sorts of obstacles standing in the way of its being implemented.) A.R. accuses the new administration of "blatant consumption" and "luxury spending", citing only two pieces of evidence: the Reagan trip to . Santa Barbara and the redecoration of the White House. It's hard to see that this is sufficient support for the charges made. But then it's not clear just what will count here as "blatant con- sumption" and "luxury spending." Is a $52,000 trip "blatant consumption"? Perhaps if done on a regular basis; we don't know that yet. So A.R position is guilty of both vagueness (he's not at all precise on what counts as blatant and l~ury at this level) and hasty conclusion. A.R.'s point in the 3rd paragraph seems to be that legislators make decisions whose conse- quences they are shielded from, to some degree. They allow gas prices to rise, but the perks of the trade shield them from effects. There is, I think, something to this complaint. The prob- lem is that it seems tied to the following mis- sing premise, or something like it: legislators should be allowed to make decisions about the economy only insofar as they will themselves have to suffer the effects of those decisions, (along with the rest of us). But this seems impracticable. Finally, A.R. seems a little confused; his com- plaint is initially directed against the ex- ecutive branch, but his proposal is targeted at legislators (a common misunderstanding); also, his complaint is that there is a gap between government and middle America, but he proposes that legislators live at the poverty level for one month a year. Will that give them any deeper appreciation of the problems of middle America? continued ... 18 tV .' , Tbit is an angry letter. I am re- ferri88 to your printiDg seven let- _ faultiDg Reagan for taking time for R" R at IUs ranch. oare wn, &. Wolff, this Louise Leung, Wlllard L. Kenley, this Ann :LarsOn. tbiB Jonal 14. Schissler, this Johath-I an D. Sauer, this Lu Bass? The an-I lWei' is self-evident, they are, ODe! and all, INCONSEQUENTI4L PEOPLE. No matter what they do. whether they live or die, has no c to the world at I Not so, with the . t 0 United States. What this man does, and the decisions he makes, has di- rect bearing on the welfare of every single person on the face of this earth. And Presidents are humans, which means that their decision- making powers are directly affected by their personal mental and physi- cal condition. They become fa..:' tigued, and harried, and impulsive. and irritable, just like any other hu- man; but the consequences of thesel negative states, the decisions tha come out of them, are of the great- est possible pertinence to us all. Y. All rilht, then, if the President ., the need to spend his weekends in Tierra del Fuego, or even at the North Pole-fine, no matter, Wbat}- the apenae; 80 long as he returns nfresbed and restored to a state of' glm and correct ~!- Be- e8U., ShoUld·it &e~, the "expense" to US all could be catas- trophe. 19 d/ ROBERT PHIPPENY LoIAnples • Has Reagan been so blinded by the Ilamour of Hollywood that he cannot see the stark realltyOf abject poverty? Has be no heart or soul: tbat be can 80 readily MJ! (lit tbings' ::.=~~ just gettiDg away from the very tbiD8 he fought so hard to obtain? I think it is time we all stood back and took another long look at this man whom the people so over- whelmingly voted into this position ofpower . RUTH L. MACARAY SanPedlo 29 Altadena. Close Reasoner , Exhibit c/ It is easy to miss R.P.' s point here, unless one reads carefully. Paragraph #2 looks, at first glance, as though it might be ad hominem: these people are inconsequential and-rherefore have no right to criticize the President. But #3 makes it clear that this would be unfair as an inter- pretation. The argument is that the complainers fail to appreciate the monumental task of the presidency, and implies that they are applying to him standards which are not appropriate, but would be appropriate for ordinary people. Once again, large portions of #3 appear to be irrelevant, for certainly none of the complainers denied that Presidents are human, become fatigued, etc. (and therefore need some R & R). But #3 is a lead-in to the principle that R.P. finally asserts in #4: No expense is too great to insure the health and well-being of the President, be- cause the decisions he makes "have direct bearing on every single person on the face of this earth." (The decisions made by inconsequential people, on the other hand, have no such impact.) While I have no strong disagreement with the substance of R.P. 's argument, his proposal seems somewhat overblown. Surely, one would think, some limits must be placed on the President's R & R. Exhibit d/ The implicit claim here is that Reagan readily (?) cut out nutrition for poor young children. But is this true? Obviously, this is a vague reference to some of the budget cutbacks pro- posed by Reagan and his administration, but is too vague to be effective. Cheap shot: implies that Reagan can hardly wait to get out of Washington after fighting so hard to get there. Of course, Reagan wanted the Presidency, and that happens to be located in Washington, D.C. But that doesn't mean that Reagan must like the climate there (he obviously doesn't), nor can one trip back to his beloved California be construed as "getting away from what he sought to obtain"--except in a trivial sense. continued ... 30 20 Altadena Close Reasoner eJ Exhibit e/ jl§ll~i~~li~'r Straw Man:, In this context, this is straw man. The compla~nt was not that he took a few three-day weekends, but rather that he took one in ~.? . Santa Barbara, at the cost of $52,000 to the ~J;1; taxpayer. inm'."moreskess? Ad Hominem: R.H. is making an attack on the ~~onet.:~~:~~ attackers and not their arguments. But their eaaary to. unwind. ~L ~it b personal habits and life conditions and work ~~~ conditions are not the point here; even if ~ some of them do chase dollars and women in II'! 1l1li ·1·1I[Il!I Las Vegas, they do it (presumably) at their . _: I;' 'M •• rIi:i ..... w= own expense! But regardless of the personal II __ .~ ~.&D circumstances of those who complained, R.H. has . anmrOty failed to address their arguments when he should have. Thus, ad hominem. 21 ,,/ . i..,... .IM) eompIained about _'s trip are typieal 01. the type 01 iIIdi¥idual whose mouth is always ......... in the breeze, theb- hands .. ....,. aut. always tatin8. ei'1tnI b more, and ery foul when . ...... tries to eontml their Iiber- always, I 1111 tbank God b Ronald Rea- lID- With the condition JimmY Car- ter left WBIhiDIton I can Bee why ..... Ie would want to get away ~ fGr a break. He can uae Air Force 0I!IIe.,u.e be wants. LESLIE CALLAS Glendora Exhibit g/ Ad Hominem: Once again, this is nothing but personal abuse directed at the people who complained. How does L.C. know that this is the situation of the complainers, anyway? "Always taking, crying for more"? No basis for this allegation; but even if there were, it would not follow that their complaints were unfounded or illegitimate. The most would be that they were guilty of some moral flaw. Straw Man: The issue is not the use of Air Force One, but rather using it to fly to California. L.C. makes it sound as if those who complained were denying Reagan the use of A.F. #1. 31 22 Altadena Close Reasoner < t, BACKGROUND: This is a column by one of the most respected of U.S. political columnists, David Broder. Two observations. First, how to analyze such a column? Is it an argument? an opinion piece? a series of comments/observations? What logical techniques or strat- egies should be used? Second, I was struck by what seemed to me, on one reading, the almost savage tone of what Broder writes--which causes me to want to look more closely at this piece. What follows are com- ments made "on the run" by A.C.R. D. c. N~=C;n;e; Means Only What You Think (1) An attempt to catch the attention of the reader, playing on the initials: D.C. The problem for the reader is how to cash in the meaning of "difficult By DAVID S. BRODER (J)smne time in the laSt 30 days, th~ name of the 39th President of the United States has been changed from Jimmy Cartert9 Diffi- 6 CirCumStances. . t fact became apparent when Walter . Mandale appeared Friday at. the reorga- nization meeting of the Democratic'National Committee. He managed, in the courSe of his remarks. to omit' uttering the name of the President for whom he and all his listeners ~ calDplliBned oh, so recently. eJ'When it came time for him to praise retir- mg national committee chairman John C. White, Mondale said a 0 cFi ~ allY~ cha1rman under "Difficul ow difficult the circumstances were for e Democratic Party under, Carter was ::et1I&i~;rt in an jn:=ndent fjnan- . JQ-Kenned members ofthe ,party's ex:ecutiye committee insisted on . e after the election. It showed, among other thingS, that the national committee received almost $1 mil- lion less in small direct':mail contributions in 1980 than it had in 1976, when Gerald R. Ford was in the White House. ,It showed that the party spent about $800,000 more in 1980 than in 1976 in direct support of the presidential, camp;tign, but qllly half as much on Yoter registration. It aJS6 showed that the national committee paid out more money for Patrick Caddell's polls for the presidential campaign than it contributed to all the other Democrats running for office in /J,.9f!IJ. , ur.1t is that sort of pattern that explams the caustic comment of Senate Minority Leader Robert C. Byrd (D-W.Va.) to the national CG.DUDittee meeting that "never again must the Democratic National Committee become tile 8(ijunct of the Committee to Reelect the n ~ru eau as a lea er w ~c en s tbe country. Prime Minister Pierre Elliott- w~th a pred~ct~on (#14): Reagan cannot expect Trudeau efCanada is an enigmatic, change- to win Trudeau with charm but only with mastery ~ bleman.regardedbymanyasqUixotiC: of the issues Some inferences are woven in But amid the most trying circ;,umstanceS' . • . ' e has held power with only a brief inter~ but twc;:> th~ngs to watch for = (l) Are, the ~nter- ruption for more than a dozen year-so Doing pretat~ons Kraft offers bas~cally rel~able ones? business with Trudeau thui,poses a trlletest (2) (related) Does it show an understanding of 0f.Reagan88~esi~ent. . Canadian affairs? ~ Many hermc traits come together 10 the' ~anadian leader. He is handsome. weU- ... dAb. intelligent. articulate and adept _cally eves But none 01 these es detennin political fortune. What counted more was an occasion-the ~e of tension between Quebec. with itl Pl'eneh culture, and the rest of the COUD- ~ ; ,nth its Enslish culture, as the central . , . of Canadian polities. . u combined in his person the dual ilattonal heritage. ije tose overnight from cm'Qparatiye obscurity to the top of the ~ e. Since 1968. his destiny and s . 'ny have been intertwined. Bilingualism, the use of French on equal rms with Enslish throughout the country. was his first enthusiasm. ~ earned him enouCh credit in Quebec to stamp out the Dolence of the separatist movement. and then to defeat a referendum that would ~ ~~~ put the province on the road to separa- ~ut Canada's identity crisis turned out to far deeper than language. Quebec seeks a surge of economic modernization as well as more political autonomy. The other pro- vinces have reacted against bilingualism. Those with energy riches-Alberta and Bri- tilll Columbia and (more recently) the east- Comments on article: #1 focusses on Trudeau, and #2-12:provide background on Trudeau and re- cent events in Canadian political history and Trudeau's role in them. (2) "Doing business with Trudeau thus poses a true test of Reagan as President." There's an assumption here, which I would phrase this way: "Doing business with a leader of government who has held power under the most trying circumstance for 12 years is a true test of Reagan as Presiden How much of a test can it be, given the short tim available to them? {3} Kraft seems to be implicitly classifying as heroic traits: "being handsome, well-born, ." which hardly seems appropriate. (4) It's overly dramatic to suggest that Trudeau rose overnight; after all, he was Justice Ministe under Pearson, and a well-known figure in Quebec politics for some years. A questionable inter- pretation, which tends to lend clout to the pic- ture of Trudeau Kraft is sketching here, which emphasizes the dramatic qualities of Trudeau's em lINVinces-have asserted provincial career and personality, without any mention of ri8hts to exploit oil and gas for their own the qualities which have irritated many Canadians benefit. CJ)Againstthatthreatofnationaldisintegra. (5) Another questionable interpretation: Did tion.Trudeauhasmobilized- - Trudeau's advocacy of bitIiigualism earn him the iwog federalism. He is now driving through credit to "stamp out" (Drama) the violence of ~~ul~~~:~!~~te~~~i~~~~~ k~it~a~~~ri~~ the separatist movement? What's Kraft referring Act of 1867. which has been Canada's basic to here? The demise of the FLQ? How much of . law, into a new constitution. The new con- that was Trudeau's doing? Or to the defeat of stitution would protect individuals through the referendum? a bill of rights but it would centralize eco- nomic power in Ottawa. It would allow for amendment$ by popular referendum rather Qp W'~ approval. {7} "uncompromising federalism" ... -a phrase repeated later--but accurate? continued .. a ....... ~in theCanadiaD . ." cd' drOhtano. htve foutht back at many levels. They have opposed Trudeau in , the Canadian Parliament and in the courts. 'Tbey have threatened to hold back delivery ofoAL result. the British overnment of ut Trudeau. fighting for his life and his country. has outflanked tJle »roYinciJl chauvinists by two maneuvers that emplJa- size Canadian nationalism. IIDFirst. there is a new energy law that ~rks to Canadianize development of oil and gas. Because the international compa- nies own most of the dr\lling rights. Trudeau, instead of being locked into a petty quarrel with the provinces, is standing- up ~ Canada against Big Oil. - II'Second, Trudeau has come up with - a foreign policy that asserts Canada's inde- pendence from the American connection. After trying to align Canada with the Eu- ropean Community, and then with Japan and China in the Pacific baf$ln, he has nqw embraced the Third World. He can combine with President Jose Lopez Portillo of Mexi- co to squeeze the United States for more generous help to the underdevelopedcoun- ies. e uncom romisin character of the or centra aut orl as raised eyebrows allover the world. any Canadians think that after years of fooling around, he is making a final bid to put his mark on the country. Oil companies every-- where have damned his energy poliCies. Not a few Americans believe that his quest for an independent foreign policy is what one high official in Washington ca!ls "fla~y." _ (JJ>But the United State~ has Vital busmess I.n Canada. This country s energy future IS bound up with development of Canadian re- sources, and the construction across Canada of a gas pipeline from Alaska to the north- em states. Canada and the United States share responsibility for continental defense. Environmental issues have to be worked out together. A fisheries treaty. important to Canada. has been held up in the Senate be- e f opposition from New England. blishing rapport with Trudeau. in ese conditions. presents a new challenge to Reapn. The two men are almost opposite in character and experience. If only because he is fighting for national existence, Trudeau is not going to be overwhelmed by the Reagan charm. Because circumstances oblf,e him to move to his left. Trudeau wil1 be turned off by conservative slogans. He elD be reached and won only by something that the new President has yet to show- mastery of a complicated subject. Joseph Kraft writes a syndicated column in w.p ....... - -. 35 Altadena Close Reasoner (8) Questionable interpretation. Is the reason for British apprehension the oppo- sition of provincial premiers? (9) "provincial chauvinists": a questionable classification I think. There are tough dif- ferences between Trudeau and the premiers. (12) "raised eyebrows allover the world": a slight exaggeration, one suspects; but one that serves to increase the dramatic tone. Summary: Kraft's interpretations of recent events in Canadian political history and Trudeau's role in them are sometimes a bit flaky. He mentions none of the negatives that critics of Trudeau have been concerned about. In the main, he seeks to create an aura of drama around Trudeau--some of it no doubt justified, some not. There are no serious errors of fact here; but an unwary reader might well receive misleading impressions from this article. The prediction which Kraft appends may be close to the truth of the matter, though its basis in fact is slightly tenuous. 36 24 Al tadena Close Reasoner In Defense of Culture, the Unraveling Tie That Binds ., ~T C. SOLOMON I&tIbIrt C. ~, who ~ philosophy at the lJniuer· sity of Tems. Austin. is the author of "History and Human Nat""' au"TM .PtIuicmB." SYNOPSIS: The prevailing theme in this article is that culture has come upon hard times. Solomon cites some evidence that this is so (#2-3 from the Rockefeller Foundation study on the state of humanitief and then later in #10-13 evidence drawn from Solomon's own experience: #4-7 appear to be devoted to rebutting an alternative point of view, j these #'s contain most of the argumentative portions to be found here My synopsis suggests three questions to be borne in mind in evaluatin< this piece: (1) How compelling is the evidence Solomon cites? (2) How good are his arguments against the alternative point of view? (3) What can be said for his prescription (#9) about how to change the situation, if we were to agree that it is as he says it is? I · In our aggressively egalitarian society, "culture" has al- ways been a suspect word. §uggesting the pretentions of an effete and foolish leisure class, like the grand dames spoofed in Marx Brothers' films. But the pretentions of a self-appointed cultural elite notwithstanding. "culture" adually refers to nothing more objectionable than a system mbols and exam les that hold a society to eth- $I. Within a culture we are in e Sptrlts. sImp y ecause 'We understand one another. ", A recent and somewhat frightening Rockefeller Foun- dation study on the state of the humanities in American life reported that the vast majority of even our most educated citizens are ignorant of !he common literature and history that reinforce not only cultural identity but also moral cboigls. Doctors. lawyers and business executives are in positions of great responsibility. but often have little or no training in the ethical background that makes their critical choices meaningful. And across our society in general. we find ourselves increasingly fragmented, split into factions and "generation gaps" -which now occur at two- or three-year intervals-just because the once-automatic aasumption of a shared culture, something beyond shared highways. television programming and economic worries. i1no longer valid. :lIn our schools. according to the Rockefeller report, the problem lies largely in what has recently been hailed as a pedagogical panacea-the "back to basics" movement. which includes no cultural content whatsoever. just skills and techniques. Reading is taught as a means of survival In the modern world. not as a source of pleasure and of shared experience. otion of " eat books" is viewed b most educators as an archaic concept. relegat to t e museum OJ OldB --aevtees such as the memonzatiOn In Greek OfpillBafe8 m Htier. (1) Here Solomon attempts to disarm the unstated objection that a concerl for culture is the occupation of a pretentious and effete and foolish leisure class. (1) Here Solomon provides what is in effect a definition of the term " culture"--a system of shared symbol: and examples that hold a society together. (2) Here Solomon hints at his own vievl: that culture resides primaril: in literature. (3) Once again, Solomon hints at his own position: the "great books" are the bulwark of culture. continued ... 37 Altadena Close Reasoner fBut are "great books" (and legends, poems, paintings (4) Here So~omon expands the referent. of . and plays) indeed the only conduit of culture, or have they culture to ~ncl ude legends, poems, pa~nt~ngs, been n:pl~ced by ~o~e accessible and effortless media of and plays, and cites an obj ection which he \Ia~srmsslon-televlslon,forexa~ple,andfilms? . will argue against. The objection is this: ~Films. robe sure. have entered mto our culturalldenbty -- ~~- -=----~....:;,;;..;.~ extremel owerful way; indeed, it is not clear that a the cultural role that was once played b¥ rson who knows not n 0 ar or ap m, w s the great books, legends, poems, etc., ( ~. e. , ne~er seen (oun ran 001: wa c a es ern cou d print culture) has been superceded by a ~auq to be ully part of AmerIcan c ture .. ut ese are new electronic culture pre-eminent among classICS, and they nave some of the same VIrtue as great . ' ..' . books;' Is characters and moral exam les have wh~ch are telev~s~on and f~lms. lieenaroundlon eno hto an enerationsan se- (5) Here Solomon is willing to grant (some) ts f . ulation and to rovideasharedvocabula- films entry into the land of culture while 1N!ba~l!c!r:pcp.dsha.mt values. Nosueh virtue is to denying entry to television series. , fiiiiid m te"'leviiiOn serIei1Jiat disappear every two years. . . . (or less), films that survjve but a season or "made-for- (6) Cont~nu7s th7 attack on telev~s~on, wh~ch TV" movies with a lifetime of two hours minus commercial Solomon cla~s "~s no culture at all" and breaks. (7) excludes contemporary/pop/rock music '''Television culture" is no culture at all, and it is no sur- from the realm of culture. prise that,. when kids change heroes with the seasons, their parents don't (and couldn't possibly) keep up with them. Most charitably, then, we can interpret The symbolism of "Moby Dick" and "The Scarlet Letter," Solomon to be arguing for the following however much we resented being force-fed them in . ( . . . school, is something we can all be expected to share. The cla~I?~n #4-7): wh~le s,?m7 f~lms may inanities of "The Dukes of Hazzard," viewed by no matter qual~fy as culture, telev~s~on and popular how many millions of people. will not replace them. mus ic cannot qual ify as cuI t ure-. - 1 The same is true of our musical heritage. The Beatles are . - only a name to most 12-year-olds. Beethoven. by contrast, What grounds does Solomon provide? He ntin':les to rovide the musical themes we can assume ought to be arguing that neither TV nor (e . '. • d" t f h d gain This' n't bbe 't' 1"t mus~c can prov~ e a sys em 0 s are . . 18 ~!!O rY;1 ~c~n mUl y. symbols and examples that hold a society together"-- which was the definit·ion of culture he offered in #1. But it is apparent in #5, #6 and #7 that a somewhat different definition of culture is being appealed to here. For while one might agree with Solomon that liThe Dukes of Hazzard" is an inane program, one can scarcely deny that it is part of a system of shared symbols and examples that hold society together. One need only consider the intense interest generated by "Dallas", for example. So if Solomon wishes to disqualify mass TV programming as culture, he must do it on other grounds; i.e., appeal to a different definition of culture. That he does so is apparent in #5, when he is discussing films. Referring to the films of Bogart, Chaplin and the (young) Brando (of "On The Waterfront", 1958), he says: "But these are classics, and they have the same virtue as great books: their symbols,characters and moral examples (Bogart?) have been around long enough to span generations and to provide a shared vocabulary, shared heroes and shared values." In other words, built into this definition of culture are two indices not mentioned in the first: (1) an evaluative component--he's referring to film classics; (2) a temporal component-- nothing can be culture until it has stood the test of time. But what is the test of time? How long does something have to be around? continued ... 38 Altadena Close Reasoner Hence it seems to me that Solomon is guilty of ambiguity, because he uses the term "culture" in two different senses. On the one hand, culture is (#1) "a system of shared symbols and examples that hold a society together." Presumably because he cannot exclude popular television shows from culture in this sense, he later shifts to a second sense of the term (#5): "symbols, characters and moral examples (which) have been around long enough to span generations and segments ••• " It is the latter sense that is used in the reasoning which supports the claim that "television culture is no culture at all" (#6). Television is still a young medium, compar.ed with literature, painting, sculpture, etc. It is also a very dif- ferent medium. Solomon chooses to compare the best of classical literature (Moby Dick, The Scarlet Letter) with the worst of what television has to offer-r"The Dukes of Hazzard")-.--Granted that the standards of programming in television are not high, yet one could cite series like "Upstairs, Downstairs" and even series like "All in the Family" and "The Mary Tyler Moore Show" which seem to have provided symbols and characters and moral examples for viewers. It is in the nature of the medium that such series are not permanently available for viewing; but this again points to the skewed nature of the comparison he draws. He compares "the great books" with mass TV programming. The comparison is loaded and tilted; a "great book" is, by definition, a cultural artifact. His argument against contemporary music is ludicrous. He writes: "The Beatles are only a name to most 12-year-olds." What a peculiar argument! I have two objections. First, from my own personal experience: my three children, all under 12, love and enjoy the music of the Beatles, know some of the lyrics, and generally respond to their music. But, second, since when were 12-year-old children the reference point for deciding what is and what is not part of musical, or any other part of, culture? Melville is only a name to most 12-year-olds, too. Does that fact weigh against Moby Dick? Solomon continues: "Beethoven, by contrast, continues to provide the musical themes we can assume (even if wrongly) that all of us have heard, time and time again." Us? Who? Why not subject Beethoven's music to the same test suggested for the Beatles? Solomon is just wrong here (not to mention inconsistent). If he can argue that not having seen a Brando movie is perhaps sufficient to disqualify someone from the realm of American culture, then it can equally be argued that not to have listened to the Beatles and Dylan is also sufficient. To have been part of American life in the 60's and 70's and not to have heard "Yesterday," "Eleanor Rigby," ·"A Day in the Life," etc. etc.--that is equally impossible. It can, I think, be said that Solomon's arguments against television and popular music as important cultural forces are very weak. His arguments are guilty of peveral fallacious moves: the ambiguous use of the term "culture," comparing apples and oranges, inconsistency, and just plain falsity. continued ... 39 Altadena Close Reasoner Solomon's perception of and arguments against contemporary mass culture, as represented particularly by television and music, are shallow. I would argue, against his view, that television and contemporary music are the two most powerful forms and forces within contemporary culture. Both forms are, by nature, evanescent, quick to change, mercurial, as contrasted with the cultural forms obviously dear to Solomon's heart: literature and painting. For my part, I am willing to grant that no one can claim to fully appreciate or participate in this culture who does not understand the ties that bind it with its antecedents. On the other hand, those who represent and find their fuller share of meaning in literate culture ought not to be so quick to dismiss these newer and different cultural forms and forces. I A professor recently wrote il! the Wall Street Journ~l that he had mentioned Socrates In class (at a rather prestI- gious liberal-arts college) and had drawn blanks from more than half the students. My colleagues and I at the University of Texas swap stories almost daily about refer- ences that our students don't catch. Even allowing gene- rous leeway for our own professional prejudices and mis- perceptions of what is important, the general picture is dis- turbing. We are becoming a culture without a culture, lacking fixed points of reference and a shared vocabulary. , It would be~. so inexpensive, to change all of that; a reading list for high-school students; a little encourage- ment in the media; Ja bit more enlightenment in our college "umcula.. • With' all of this in mind, I decided to see just what I could or could not assume among my students, 'YhQ.are generallY) bright and better educated than average (given that they arc taking philosophy courses, by no means an assumed In - t.eFe'St among undergraduates these days). I gave them a name quiz, in effect, of some of the figures that, on most people's list, would rank among the most important and of- ten referred to in Western culture. Following are some of the results, in terms of the percentage of students who re- cognized them): Socrates, 87%; Louis XIV, 59%; Moses, 90% Hawthorne, 42%; John Milton, 35% Trotsky, 47%; Donatello, 8% Copernicus, 47%; Puccini, 11 % Charlemagne. 40%; Virginia Woolf. 25% Estes Kefauver. 8%; Debussy,14% Let us, for the moment, concentrate on (9), where Solomon offers his prescription. He suggests a reading list for high school students. I have nothing against this; but what will be on it? "a little more en- couragement in the media"--meaning what? "a bit more enlightenment in our college curricula"--meaning what? Solomon's proposal betrays his bias for literature culture; but more dev- astating to it than that is the fact that it contains no specifics. No wonder he can write that "it would be so easy, so inexpensive, to change all that"! The proposal is too vague. Finally, then, we turn to the question of evidence for the state of decline. I am per~ectly prepared to accept this thesis. His evidence is found in (#2-3) courtesy of the Rockefeller study, #8, and the name quiz (plus interpretation) which he gave to his students dealt with in #10-12. (Here I cannot resist pointing out a dubious assumption which Solomon makes when he states: "My students ••• are generally brighter and better educated than the average (given that they are taking philosophy courses ••. ). Solomon is assuming here that the best explanation for anyone's taking a philosophy course is that the individual is or wishes to be better educated! Would that it were so! My experience teaches that students take philosophy for any number of reasons: because they have a slot open and the phil. course fits; because it has a reputation of being an easy ("bird") course; because it's a course they haven't taken before; because an advisor steers them into it; etc.