[PREV - THE_GREAT_DEBATE] [TOP]
March 12, 2005
Paul Graham invokes Montaigne in an argument
*against* debate. The irony of that is so
heavy, it seems like an intentional joke --
Montaigne's most famous work is If you want the *real*
"On the Art of Conversation", full Montaigne, there's
which is largely a hymn to the "complete essays"
intellectual stimulation through translated by Cotton
argument. available on-line from
the Gutenberg project.
But then a close reading of the Montaigne
shows that he distinguishes between In the translation
"debating" and the sort of lively by Charles Cotton,
"conversation" he's in favor of... from the 1600s,
he renders the Possibly
This distinction being that in debate title as "The Art just a
you're taught only how to make the of Conference". funky
other side look bad, and in translation
conversation you should be listening but it
for corrections of your own errors, suggests
rather than trying to sweep them some
under the rug. subtleties
may be
in play
An overview of the structure and here...
themes of "Conversation":
o Introductory remarks about
the virtues of learning by These remarks seem
counter-example, stating strangely out of Well,
that he is going to use his place at first glance: really
own behavior as an example *second*
of what should be avoided. What do they glance.
have to do with
the following
o The major theme: discussion?
the importance of
receptiveness to I think the real
counter-argument. answer is that
both are about
developing through
o The problem with pedants. contention, by
segues into this by making the embracing the contrary.
point that they're often
terrible at reasoned debate:
they resort to bluster, insult,
they try and brow-beat with
learned quotation, etc. The general point is
that we should be
receptive to truth,
not impressed by
mere authority.
And after returning
to his first two themes
he goes into...
o The closing discussion
on Tacitus It may look like he's
wandered far afield,
but I think there's a
subtle thread that
runs through all of
this:
At this point he argues
that you should avoid
excessive faith in
your own judgement --
Just as you
He praises should be
Tacitus for open to
passing on all correction
the evidence, from others;
even when you should
Tacitus avoid fanatical
himself doubts imposition of
it's utility your opinions
on others...
In general, this is a tremendously
tight essay: it looks far more
discursive than it is -- it sticks
to one central concern, coming
at it from different angles.
It's primary weakness is
it's very disingenous
self-deprecation...
In the introduction, Montaigne
claims he will try to show the (Instruction by
correct path by describing his own embracing contrary
errors, but the following essay is example ~
obviously, indisputably Montaigne challenging
bragging about his open-mindedness. intellectual
debate.)
He's tremendously proud of his love
of argument; and his claim that he
has a great fault -- he's sometimes
impatient with fools -- seems forced.
And throughout his complaints
about pedantry, he is always at
pains to distinguish between the
truly erudite and his own poor
knowledge -- but the essay is Granted that we're easily
thoroughly drenched in references impressed by this these
to classical literature... days, and standards for
such things were much
Has there ever been such a higher back then, still it
blatant example of false seems grossly improbable
modesty? that anyone ever regarded
Montaigne as lacking in
scholarship.
Truly a great essay....
I've been thinking
about inventing a
new slashdot id
to use for nothing
but appropriate
quotations from
"The Art of
Conversation"
PRIMARY_MONTAIGNER
--------
[NEXT - PRIMARY_MONTAIGNER]