I like how Harris addresses that there is a difference between countering and arguing. According to Harris, when one is countering, they’re not saying that another person is wrong, more that they ‘forgot’ something or didn’t clarify something enough.
When people argue, their main goal is to convince the other person that they’re wrong. The problem with this is that it’s nearly impossible to convince someone that they are wrong. With countering, I think the main purpose is to convince a third party that there are flaws in someone’s point. It is very unlikely that, as writers, the things we counter will be considered by the original writers. I really doubt that Hedges or Jarvis will see our criticism of their witting, but the pint is not to convince them, the point is to convince others.
In this way countering is like forwarding in that its part of a continuous timeline. One person write something, another counters, and then a third person counters. However when the third person counters the second person they don’t necessarily agree with the first person because there are more than two sides to any situation. They could bring something new to the table. I don’t really like that phrase; bring something new t the table. I think it’s because it lack the dynamic quality that is going on. A table doesn’t move. I think what going on is that the stuff from one table is being transported to another table and slightly altered. Then it goes to another table. I think this metaphor also works for forwarding.
That’s all I’m going to write for this one because I am so far behind in all of my classes that I need to work on other stuff.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment