----------------- 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]