----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
 
Further to Carlyle/Dickens and Levy/Quinn 
 
This is an argument which is implicit in those who stress Carlyle's  
"fascist" attitudes,: 
 
1. Carlye believed the anti-slavery movement to be dismal 
2. Therefore, Carlyle was no judge of what is dismal. 
 
This is not a  deductive argument, but it is an argument. It is an  
argument against Carlyle as an authority ; ie an argument for the  
worthlessness/irrelevance of Carlyle's thoughts on a topic.   
 
The adversaries of economics can use an argument of the same  
structure against economics. Namely,   
 
1. Economist A believes revolting phenomena  B to be a good thing 
2.  Therefore, Economist A is no judge of what is a good thing. 
 
For example, 
 
A = malthus 
B =  forbidding the feeding of a starving infant from public revenue 
 
Indeed, anti-malthusians argued  frequently in this matter. 
 
The value of these arguments (being non-deductive) are obviously  
highly contingent. Neverthless, I think they have some force.   
 
There is  variant force is still more contingent, but which has a  
more  
interesting conclusion. 
 
1. Carlye believed the anti-slavery movement to be dismal 
2. The anti-slavery movement is good. 
3. Therefore, what Carlyle judged to be dismal is actually good. 
 
This an argument for the NEGATIVE authority of  Carlyle; ie for the  
conclusion that Carlyle's affirmation of any proposition constitutes  
evidence for the NEGATION of the proposition he affirmed.   
 
William Coleman 
University of Tasmania 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]