The lecture earlier on was on two very interesting topics - a fusion of philosophy and sonnets. I learnt about the difference between a valid and sound but not strong argument, and a valid and sound and strong argument.
For instance, there can be an argument that all islands are surrounded by water, and since Singapore is an island, therefore it is surrounded by water. A sound, valid and strong argument.
But there is the other example that all doctors I know drive BMWs, and since Susan is a doctor, thus she drives a BMW. This is not really a valid or strong argument, since it is just generalising.
The topic of discussion was actually on whether authors with "dark" backgrounds should be judged according to their works? Thus, if this author happened to be immoral, then should their books be banned so as not to have a bad influence on others?
But the thing is a good story determines a good author. So would the author's own private life be of any concern to the readers? To totally boycott a good story just because the author is immoral is really absurd.
There was an article that came out last year on J. M. Barrie, the author of Peter Pan. He took care of the five boys after the mother died, but there was speculation that he was a paedophile, although no evidence came to light.
One parent said that he would not want his daughter to read a book written by a supposed paedophile. Poor thing, she will miss out on such a good story. The thing is that a story is a story. Stories are there to entertain, to gain knowledge, to improve vocabulary and the language.
Stories are not there to promote the author's background or tell the character of the author. In that case, the author can just write an autobiography, not a story.
How many authors we know really lead clean good lives? Not many actually. Often, their private lives are just as colourful as their stories. William Shakespeare dumped his wife, had many mistresses (as evidenced in his sonnets), was involved in a threesome with a young man and a young woman, but he is still the greatest playwright England ever produced.
Oscar Wilde divorced his wife for his gay lover. Charles Dickens had many mistresses. Dante Gabriel Rosetti was a left-wing radical, a serial adulterer and a casanova. Does it mean they are not capable of producing good literary stuff worthy to read?
If anything, those greatest writers of all time probably led much "darker" lives than most normal people. That does not mean everyone has to boycott their stories just because the authors will influence us to be immoral.
We are reading a good piece of literature, a good book, a beautiful story, a nice poem or sonnet. We are not reading about the author's lives, and even if we are, we can always treat it as another story for entertainment.
So must we judge the works by authors who were deemed to be "immoral"? A story is a story, and good literature is good literature. We read for pleasure. It will be too ridiculous to even assume that if we read a story written by an immoral person, we will become immoral.
Likewise, it is also very ridiculous to have the thinking that if your child reads a story by a supposed paedophile, he / she will be molested.
If this argument stands true, then since I am a mean person, people should just stop reading what I write since people will become mean after reading my writings. :-p
For instance, there can be an argument that all islands are surrounded by water, and since Singapore is an island, therefore it is surrounded by water. A sound, valid and strong argument.
But there is the other example that all doctors I know drive BMWs, and since Susan is a doctor, thus she drives a BMW. This is not really a valid or strong argument, since it is just generalising.
The topic of discussion was actually on whether authors with "dark" backgrounds should be judged according to their works? Thus, if this author happened to be immoral, then should their books be banned so as not to have a bad influence on others?
But the thing is a good story determines a good author. So would the author's own private life be of any concern to the readers? To totally boycott a good story just because the author is immoral is really absurd.
There was an article that came out last year on J. M. Barrie, the author of Peter Pan. He took care of the five boys after the mother died, but there was speculation that he was a paedophile, although no evidence came to light.
One parent said that he would not want his daughter to read a book written by a supposed paedophile. Poor thing, she will miss out on such a good story. The thing is that a story is a story. Stories are there to entertain, to gain knowledge, to improve vocabulary and the language.
Stories are not there to promote the author's background or tell the character of the author. In that case, the author can just write an autobiography, not a story.
How many authors we know really lead clean good lives? Not many actually. Often, their private lives are just as colourful as their stories. William Shakespeare dumped his wife, had many mistresses (as evidenced in his sonnets), was involved in a threesome with a young man and a young woman, but he is still the greatest playwright England ever produced.
Oscar Wilde divorced his wife for his gay lover. Charles Dickens had many mistresses. Dante Gabriel Rosetti was a left-wing radical, a serial adulterer and a casanova. Does it mean they are not capable of producing good literary stuff worthy to read?
If anything, those greatest writers of all time probably led much "darker" lives than most normal people. That does not mean everyone has to boycott their stories just because the authors will influence us to be immoral.
We are reading a good piece of literature, a good book, a beautiful story, a nice poem or sonnet. We are not reading about the author's lives, and even if we are, we can always treat it as another story for entertainment.
So must we judge the works by authors who were deemed to be "immoral"? A story is a story, and good literature is good literature. We read for pleasure. It will be too ridiculous to even assume that if we read a story written by an immoral person, we will become immoral.
Likewise, it is also very ridiculous to have the thinking that if your child reads a story by a supposed paedophile, he / she will be molested.
If this argument stands true, then since I am a mean person, people should just stop reading what I write since people will become mean after reading my writings. :-p
5 comments:
A quote from my hometown translated directly to english:
A diamond comes out from a dog's mouth is still a diamond
"If this argument stands true, then since I am a mean person, people should just stop reading what I write since people will become mean after reading my writings."
Your argument is not sound. You have not proven that you're a mean person. You're only assuming/guessing/thinking that you're a mean person
--phoenich
The argument isn't even valid :)
Perhaps there are some other reason for one to boycott literature from authors of darker background other than to assume that reading the author's work would have a similar and negative impact to their own lives.
Countries impose economical sanction on rogue nations not because the products from those nations would have negative influence on their citizens but rather to inflict economical penalties that these nations would realize their mistake and hopefully, repent.
the "valid and strong and sound" arguments actually have a name, they are called PREMISES.
if premise 1 is correct, premise 2 is correct, then the conclusion should be correct.
if there's an error, it's called a LOGICAL FALLACY.
get it?
Phoenich & Lee Cooper : Thank you.
Anon : Yes, I just covered that in my lecture the other day, but thanks for the info anyway.
Post a Comment