User avatar
 
WaltGrace1983
Thanks Received: 207
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 837
Joined: March 30th, 2013
 
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
Most Thankful
trophy
First Responder
 

Passage Discussion

by WaltGrace1983 Sun Jun 08, 2014 12:34 pm

I'm a bit confused about what is going on with the author's opinion in this passage. On page 31 of the 4th edition RC guide, it states that the author doesn't present any opinions of her own until the final paragraph of the passage.

In this case, what is going on in the second paragraph, beginning at line 18?

    (10) One judge states purely intellectual
    (14) Critics maintain purely institutional; others believe intellectual doesn't even exist!

    But then on line 18 we get "But it can be countered that these claims** break down when a sufficiently broad historical perspective is taken." This seems incredibly indicative of the author's perspective! On my passage, I marked this statement with giant stars because it seems so important.

    **"These claims" refers to the claims of being PURELY intellectual or PURELY institutional.


Another interesting thing that happens is that we get this phase "intellectual authority and institutional consensus are not the same thing."

    I see how the passage leads up to this point by talking about how some well-reasoned arguments (i.e. intellectual authority) are not unanimously accepted (line 23). Meanwhile, some institutional arguments (those "accepted by institutions" - line 21) do not withstand the "test of time" (i.e. are overturned by "intellectual authority" - line 22).

    I am just a little confused about why "institutional consensus" matters. Is the author merely stating that an argument can be intellectual and yet not be unanimously agreed upon? I cannot see any other really important meaning besides that in the larger context of the passage. Paragraph 3 just seems to flesh out that idea more.


Help, anyone?
User avatar
 
ohthatpatrick
Thanks Received: 3808
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 4661
Joined: April 01st, 2011
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
 

Re: Passage Discussion

by ohthatpatrick Tue Jun 10, 2014 1:09 pm

I totally agree with you about the author's voice/opinion first occurring in line 18. I'm going to email our book people about that to see if they want to tweak that wording for the next printing. Thanks!

Frequently, seeing a sentence prefaced by "it can be argued" would mean the author is bringing up a point of view, but not necessarily one that she agrees with. Sometimes authors just 'present the debate'. And so I think the book writers were probably saying that AT THAT POINT in the passage, we're not sure if lines 18-27 are really the author's thoughts or whether the author is just presenting common rationales people use to debate these critics.

By the end of the passage, we clearly see that our author IS involved in arguing against these critics, so I think it's fair, in a revisionist way to say that lines 18-27 were the author talking.

(Was that lawyerly or what? I just defended my client, whether or not I believe in the merits of his case) :)

In terms of institutional 'consensus' vs. 'authority', I think the passage was pretty much using them interchangeably. In order for institutions to exert the power of their arguments on people, the institutions would first have to agree to a certain law/standard.

So we could say a maxim such as "thou shalt pay your income tax" does not have intellectual authority ... it's not necessarily a claim that someone intellectually must believe. But since the government is set up with laws that say you have to pay your income tax, we would say that there is institutional consensus on the matter, and hence institutional authority behind that maxim.

Meanwhile, a line like "intellectual authority and institutional consensus are not the same thing" refers to things like Galileo advancing the argument that the Earth revolves around the Sun, not the other way around.

Galileo's argument has intellectual authority, while the geocentric (earth-centered) model of the world had institutional consensus/authority in Galileo's time.

The idea in P3 is that if there's consensus within the world of musicology that "5 decades is long enough to judge whether an artist was influential", then you can derive statements with intellectual authority by using that arbitrary (institutional) standard.

If Johnny 2-Sox's experimental harmonica ballads didn't find any significant audience within their first 5 decades, then everyone can intellectually agree that he was not an influential artist. The critics are saying, "How arbitrary that you concoct this 5-decade measuring standard! That standard has no intellectual authority, even if the judgments you render by that standard are agreed to be accurate according to that standard."

The author agrees with this, but says that judges have the power to "change the standard" (ditch the somewhat arbitrary precedent). The fact that they choose to do so when the precedent seems to be a poor fit for society/reality shows that judges are using intellectual considerations to render their judgments, not just institutional ones.

Hope this helps.
 
duanyintian
Thanks Received: 0
Vinny Gambini
Vinny Gambini
 
Posts: 2
Joined: April 29th, 2015
 
 
 

Re: Passage Discussion

by duanyintian Sat May 23, 2015 11:24 pm

ohthatpatrick Wrote:I totally agree with you about the author's voice/opinion first occurring in line 18. I'm going to email our book people about that to see if they want to tweak that wording for the next printing. Thanks!

Frequently, seeing a sentence prefaced by "it can be argued" would mean the author is bringing up a point of view, but not necessarily one that she agrees with. Sometimes authors just 'present the debate'. And so I think the book writers were probably saying that AT THAT POINT in the passage, we're not sure if lines 18-27 are really the author's thoughts or whether the author is just presenting common rationales people use to debate these critics.

By the end of the passage, we clearly see that our author IS involved in arguing against these critics, so I think it's fair, in a revisionist way to say that lines 18-27 were the author talking.

(Was that lawyerly or what? I just defended my client, whether or not I believe in the merits of his case) :)

In terms of institutional 'consensus' vs. 'authority', I think the passage was pretty much using them interchangeably. In order for institutions to exert the power of their arguments on people, the institutions would first have to agree to a certain law/standard.

So we could say a maxim such as "thou shalt pay your income tax" does not have intellectual authority ... it's not necessarily a claim that someone intellectually must believe. But since the government is set up with laws that say you have to pay your income tax, we would say that there is institutional consensus on the matter, and hence institutional authority behind that maxim.

Meanwhile, a line like "intellectual authority and institutional consensus are not the same thing" refers to things like Galileo advancing the argument that the Earth revolves around the Sun, not the other way around.

Galileo's argument has intellectual authority, while the geocentric (earth-centered) model of the world had institutional consensus/authority in Galileo's time.

The idea in P3 is that if there's consensus within the world of musicology that "5 decades is long enough to judge whether an artist was influential", then you can derive statements with intellectual authority by using that arbitrary (institutional) standard.

If Johnny 2-Sox's experimental harmonica ballads didn't find any significant audience within their first 5 decades, then everyone can intellectually agree that he was not an influential artist. The critics are saying, "How arbitrary that you concoct this 5-decade measuring standard! That standard has no intellectual authority, even if the judgments you render by that standard are agreed to be accurate according to that standard."

The author agrees with this, but says that judges have the power to "change the standard" (ditch the somewhat arbitrary precedent). The fact that they choose to do so when the precedent seems to be a poor fit for society/reality shows that judges are using intellectual considerations to render their judgments, not just institutional ones.

Hope this helps.


This is such baffling article! Thank you for your explanation, ohthatpatrick! It seems much clearer to me now. However, I am still quite confused with the logic structure of the second paragraph, how can these informations work starting on line 17 to counter, no matter whether it is the author's actual opinion or not, the previous critic's idea of the court is pure institutional authority?

Thanks!