ON THE DIACHRONY OF AFFECTIVE TONE: towards openness or closure

Jon Cogburn has taken issue with both the content and the tone of Wolfendale’s preface. As he has committed himself to reviewing the book, Cogburn has put himself in a delicate (philosophical) situation. In the name of the diversity of OOO, Cogburn has emphasised on other occasions that he disagrees with Harman on the notion of absolute withdrawal, and on his equation of regional ontologies with illusion. These are not merely divergences of detail, as if one could reasonably hold the hypothesis of absolute withdrawal, but that the known facts don’t bear it out. Cogburn must be arguing the logical case here, holding that absolute withdrawal is incoherent.

He is in fact in agreement with Wolfendale in at least some of his critiques. This means that there is a conflict of loyalties, a conflict between Jon’s loyalty to Harman and his loyalty to argument. In this context it may be reasonable for Cogburn to foreground his differences with Wolfendale to compensate for the later agreement he may have to express. This use of tone as framing device is quite common. In Jon’s case we may gloss: “I may agree with Wolfendale on some points, but we are really miles apart”.

The rational core of the demand to abandon tone and to stick to the arguments may be that rather than totally eliminating tone we should try to ensure that the tone employed is preparatory to a sincere and explicit exploration of the theses and arguments. Some tone, while superficially expressing closure, may be announcing deeper openness. Of course, there will always be the guy whose tone expresses closure all the way down, but he will make no real contribution to the discussion. I do not think this is Jon Cogburn’s case.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to ON THE DIACHRONY OF AFFECTIVE TONE: towards openness or closure

  1. I’m probably tired, but the entire debate seems irrelevant, more playing out of institutional anxieties. The OOO people are only doing what’s ‘natural’ for them. It’s ‘coffee-table’ philosophy, a ‘product’. Ultimately, there are ‘market’ reasons for the preoccupations & often erroneous revisionisms it engages in. They’re symptomatic of deeper trends. It’s all to be expected really.

    Like

  2. terenceblake says:

    Yes, it’s all just team rivalry for the moment. But if ever there is going to be the chance for a discussion of arguments it is now, so I am willing to add myself in, in a last effort to tip the scales towards argument rather than team spirit.

    Like

  3. There isn’t any likelihood that they’ll understand, they’re already invested in a discursivity of the obvious: simplistic modularities of the overt, conveyed with (“dumbed down”) consumer appeal: not in transformational arguments.

    Like

  4. landzek says:

    …a partial withdraw sounds to me that a transcendental aspect is able to be present at least partially in all conversations. Isn’t this the problem of All philosophical argument?

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s