“If it fits into a nutshell . . .”: on, the error of demanding arbitrary, rhetorically loaded brevity

_{kairosfocus

July 27, 2019

Defending our Civilization, rhetoric, Selective Hyperskepticism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I noticed that the objection of dismissal on length (without substantial consideration) has come up here at UD yet again. I think it appropriate to note its fallacious character where considerable reflection is required. (And BTW, a quote from a serious source is a legitimate approach as I will shortly exemplify.)

Accordingly, let me headline a comment I just made in the Egnor vs a materialist neuroscientist thread:

KF, 15: >>[I]f a philosophical claim on any serious matter fits neatly into a nutshell, it belongs there. There is always an issue of substantial exposition, cross-check against material facts, establishing credible coherence and comparative, balanced explanatory power. This is not a business of 140 or 280 character tweets or rhetorically loaded sloganeering. We need substance, and that’s why a serious phil work may take 50 pp to establish a pivotal point. Short summaries and headlines may indeed summarise, promote and link, but they do not generally speaking establish a substantial matter. (And BTW, that’s one of the few things that that notorious tabloid Daily Mail is exemplary on: header, bullet points, exposition.) KF

PS: In The Laws, Bk X, Plato speaks eloquently to the demand for arbitrary brevity:

Ath. At Athens there are tales preserved in writing which the virtue of your state, as I am informed, refuses to admit. They speak of the Gods in prose as well as verse, and the oldest of them tell of the origin of the heavens and of the world, and not far from the beginning of their story they proceed to narrate the birth of the Gods, and how after they were born they behaved to one another. Whether these stories have in other ways a good or a bad influence, I should not like to be severe upon them, because they are ancient; but, looking at them with reference to the duties of children to their parents, I cannot praise them, or think that they are useful, or at all true. Of the words of the ancients I have nothing more to say; and I should wish to say of them only what is pleasing to the Gods. But as to our younger generation and their wisdom, I cannot let them off when they do mischief. For do but mark the effect of their words: when you and I argue for the existence of the Gods, and produce the sun, moon, stars, and earth, claiming for them a divine being, if we would listen to the aforesaid philosophers we should say that they are earth and stones only, which can have no care at all of human affairs, and that all religion is a cooking up of words and a make-believe.
Cle. One such teacher, O Stranger, would be bad enough, and you imply that there are many of them, which is worse.
Ath. Well, then; what shall we say or do?-Shall we assume that some one is accusing us among unholy men, who are trying to escape from the effect of our legislation; and that they say of us-How dreadful that you should legislate on the supposition that there are Gods! Shall we make a defence of ourselves? or shall we leave them and return to our laws, lest the prelude should become longer than the law? For the discourse will certainly extend to great length, if we are to treat the impiously disposed as they desire, partly demonstrating to them at some length the things of which they demand an explanation, partly making them afraid or dissatisfied, and then proceed to the requisite enactments.
Cle. Yes, Stranger; but then how often have we repeated already that on the present occasion there is no reason why brevity should be preferred to length; who is “at our heels”?-as the saying goes, and it would be paltry and ridiculous to prefer the shorter to the better. It is a matter of no small consequence, in some way or other to prove that there are Gods, and that they are good, and regard justice more than men do. The demonstration of this would be the best and noblest prelude of all our laws. And therefore, without impatience, and without hurry, let us unreservedly consider the whole matter, summoning up all the power of persuasion which we possess. >>

Food for thought as we contemplate the need for comparative difficulties analysis. END

Comments

PS: I think it is advisable to put Plato's parable of the mutinous ship of state on the table, noting that relevant background is the Peloponnesian war and the failure of Athenian democracy:
It is not too hard to figure out that our civilisation is in deep trouble and is most likely headed for shipwreck. (And of course, that sort of concern is dismissed as “apocalyptic,” or neurotic pessimism that refuses to pause and smell the roses.) Plato’s Socrates spoke to this sort of situation, long since, in the ship of state parable in The Republic, Bk VI:
>>[Soc.] I perceive, I said, that you are vastly amused at having plunged me into such a hopeless discussion; but now hear the parable, and then you will be still more amused at the meagreness of my imagination: for the manner in which the best men are treated in their own States is so grievous that no single thing on earth is comparable to it; and therefore, if I am to plead their cause, I must have recourse to fiction, and put together a figure made up of many things, like the fabulous unions of goats and stags which are found in pictures. Imagine then a fleet or a ship in which there is a captain [–> often interpreted, ship’s owner] who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better. [= The people own the community and in the mass are overwhelmingly strong, but are ill equipped on the whole to guide, guard and lead it] The sailors are quarrelling with one another about the steering – every one is of opinion that he has a right to steer [= selfish ambition to rule and dominate], though he has never learned the art of navigation and cannot tell who taught him or when he learned, and will further assert that it cannot be taught, and they are ready to cut in pieces any one who says the contrary. They throng about the captain, begging and praying him to commit the helm to them [–> kubernetes, steersman, from which both cybernetics and government come in English]; and if at any time they do not prevail, but others are preferred to them, they kill the others or throw them overboard [ = ruthless contest for domination of the community], and having first chained up the noble captain’s senses with drink or some narcotic drug [ = manipulation and befuddlement, cf. the parable of the cave], they mutiny and take possession of the ship and make free with the stores; thus, eating and drinking, they proceed on their voyage in such a manner as might be expected of them [–> Cf here Luke’s subtle case study in Ac 27]. Him who is their partisan and cleverly aids them in their plot for getting the ship out of the captain’s hands into their own whether by force or persuasion [–> Nihilistic will to power on the premise of might and manipulation making ‘right’ ‘truth’ ‘justice’ ‘rights’ etc], they compliment with the name of sailor, pilot, able seaman, and abuse the other sort of man, whom they call a good-for-nothing; but that the true pilot must pay attention to the year and seasons and sky and stars and winds, and whatever else belongs to his art, if he intends to be really qualified for the command of a ship, and that he must and will be the steerer, whether other people like or not-the possibility of this union of authority with the steerer’s art has never seriously entered into their thoughts or been made part of their calling. Now in vessels which are in a state of mutiny and by sailors who are mutineers, how will the true pilot be regarded? Will he not be called by them a prater, a star-gazer, a good-for-nothing? [Ad.] Of course, said Adeimantus. [Soc.] Then you will hardly need, I said, to hear the interpretation of the figure, which describes the true philosopher in his relation to the State[ --> here we see Plato's philosoppher-king emerging]; for you understand already. [Ad.] Certainly. [Soc.] Then suppose you now take this parable to the gentleman who is surprised at finding that philosophers have no honour in their cities; explain it to him and try to convince him that their having honour would be far more extraordinary. [Ad.] I will. [Soc.] Say to him, that, in deeming the best votaries of philosophy to be useless to the rest of the world, he is right; but also tell him to attribute their uselessness to the fault of those who will not use them, and not to themselves. The pilot should not humbly beg the sailors to be commanded by him –that is not the order of nature; neither are ‘the wise to go to the doors of the rich’ –the ingenious author of this saying told a lie –but the truth is, that, when a man is ill, whether he be rich or poor, to the physician he must go, and he who wants to be governed, to him who is able to govern. The ruler who is good for anything ought not to beg his subjects to be ruled by him [ --> down this road lies the modern solution: a sound, well informed people will seek sound leaders, who will not need to manipulate or bribe or worse, and such a ruler will in turn be checked by the soundness of the people, cf. US DoI, 1776]; although the present governors of mankind are of a different stamp; they may be justly compared to the mutinous sailors, and the true helmsmen to those who are called by them good-for-nothings and star-gazers. [Ad.] Precisely so, he said. [Soc] For these reasons, and among men like these, philosophy, the noblest pursuit of all, is not likely to be much esteemed by those of the opposite faction; not that the greatest and most lasting injury is done to her by her opponents, but by her own professing followers, the same of whom you suppose the accuser to say, that the greater number of them are arrant rogues, and the best are useless; in which opinion I agreed [--> even among the students of the sound state (here, political philosophy and likely history etc.), many are of unsound motivation and intent, so mere education is not enough, character transformation is critical]. [Ad.] Yes. [Soc.] And the reason why the good are useless has now been explained? [Ad.] True. [Soc.] Then shall we proceed to show that the corruption of the majority is also unavoidable, and that this is not to be laid to the charge of philosophy any more than the other? [Ad.] By all means. [Soc.] And let us ask and answer in turn, first going back to the description of the gentle and noble nature.[ -- > note the character issue] Truth, as you will remember, was his leader, whom he followed always and in all things [ --> The spirit of truth as a marker]; failing in this, he was an impostor, and had no part or lot in true philosophy [--> the spirit of truth is a marker, for good or ill] . . . >>
(There is more than an echo of this in Acts 27, a real world case study. [Luke, a physician, was an educated Greek with a taste for subtle references.] This blog post, on soundness in policy, will also help)
kairosfocus_{July 27, 2019
July
07
Jul
27
27
2019
11:24 PM
11
11
24
PM
PDT}

Sev, Could you explain say the substantial core of number theory to your grandmother in a nutshell, or the architecture and machine language of an ARM processor, or Quantum theory? Relevant issues in worldviews analysis and linked topics are comparably complex. Responsible discussion is not empty typing or speaking, but requires a fairly serious engagement. I add, from the OP:
[I]f a philosophical claim on any serious matter fits neatly into a nutshell, it belongs there. There is always an issue of substantial exposition, cross-check against material facts, establishing credible coherence and comparative, balanced explanatory power. This is not a business of 140 or 280 character tweets or rhetorically loaded sloganeering. We need substance, and that’s why a serious phil work may take 50 pp to establish a pivotal point. Short summaries and headlines may indeed summarise, promote and link, but they do not generally speaking establish a substantial matter.
It is a challenge to find a balance, and there is no one the Internet audience, where it is far easier to pose questions and dismissals than it is to engage substantial matters on comparative difficulties. Which, was Plato's point. And, latterly, it is increasingly clear that much of the polarisation surrounding not only design theory but broader linked issues has to do with miseducation, gaps in understanding logic and first principles, locked-in polarisation tied to worldviews and cultural agendas, ignorance of relevant history and worse. And when it comes to general discussion of topics (especially politicised, polarised topics and things subjected to media spin by powerful agendas), the situation is deeply compounded to the point that by and large fashionable opinion is not only grossly wrong on substance but has become locked into a dangerous polarisation and factionalism that Plato warned against in his parable of the ship of state. We would do well to heed Plato's words as cited above. KFkairosfocus_{July 27, 2019
July
07
Jul
27
27
2019
11:20 PM
11
11
20
PM
PDT}

You do not really understand something unless you can explain it to your grandmother -- attributed variously to Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman and Ernest Rutherford. Verbosity is not necessarily a virtue. It can be used to obfuscate rather than illuminate. Excessive brevity can also obfuscate, however, if it hides important nuances and contexts of a case. It seems to me that the best discipline is economy where the author identifies the key elements of an argument and couches them in terms that are judged to be most accessible to an intended audience.
Seversky_{July 27, 2019
July
07
Jul
27
27
2019
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT}

RW, welcome to UD. Some very thoughtful points, I for one would enjoy amplification. And if you do not know I am perfectly willing to host guest posts. KF PS: I have always connected Occam to Einstein: things should be as simple as possible, but not simpler than that. I guess simple means different things in different contexts. My thought is, too much of modern commentary is disguised -- or even, open -- appeal to prejudice and polarisation. and Since 2016 there has been a distinct vulgarisation of language. A serious discussion pivoting on first principles has to take a first principles, educational tone. And where things need to be established as a first step . . . Plato led on to a Cosmological-Moral design inference . . . there is a place to take time to do so.kairosfocus_{July 27, 2019
July
07
Jul
27
27
2019
07:35 AM
7
07
35
AM
PDT}

I am compelled to agree with you with respect to the contemporary trend of brevity which can not satisfy the necessity for a completeness of virtuous thought. This is not an adverse to Ockham's Razor in which William of Ockham's principle can be stated, "Entities should not be multiplied without necessity." Latin: "Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate" (Plurality should not be posited without necessity.) "It is futile to do with more things that which can be done with fewer." Latin: "Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora" There are things, issues, subjects, et cetera for which brevity serves the conversation well, yet moral governance and the re-establishment of well-defined human virtue have not so served our society. Is this trend for brevity a signal of a deeper crisis with the individual "soul" found swimming against strong currents of socio-political relativism? The cry for reason in the midst of unreasonable noise is the one brevity of thought we can not hear or wish not to hear but should want to hear, though its sounding must interrupt the individual "soul's" struggle against the noise. The virtuous thoughts necessary for moral governance and re-establishment of well-defined human virtue might only emerge from an underlying silence of reason's origins.redwave_{July 27, 2019
July
07
Jul
27
27
2019
06:15 AM
6
06
15
AM
PDT}

PS: Notice Plato's context of warrant for the inherently good as grounds for moral government, law and justice, as well as his observation that a serious working through of the matter will be lengthy. Leading, to the problem of dismissiveness. Thus we come to the educator's dilemma: dialectic and/or exposition vs the punchiness (yet, too often want of real substance) of rhetoric.kairosfocus_{July 27, 2019
July
07
Jul
27
27
2019
03:51 AM
3
03
51
AM
PDT}

“If it fits into a nutshell . . .”: on, the error of demanding arbitrary, rhetorically loaded brevitykairosfocus_{July 27, 2019
July
07
Jul
27
27
2019
03:42 AM
3
03
42
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply