A Freeper's Introduction to Rhetoric (Part 12, Test Your Knowledge)

Introduction to Logic | Irving M. Copi & Carl Cohen

[LouisianaLobster]

"Time is Money" only works in one direction. That is, time can be transformed into money. You can use your time to work, and earn money. Or you can put money in your savings account, and given enough time, the interests will accumulate to any sum.

The opposite however, is not true. Money can not be transformed in time. If it could, old billionaires would spend it to buy extra years for their lives.

So time and money are not completely equivalent, which means that you cannot just substitute the word 'time' with 'money' in any sentence.

[jennyp]

The opposite however, is not true. Money can not be transformed in time. If it could, old billionaires would spend it to buy extra years for their lives.

I don't think this statement is true. Anyone who saves up money & spends it on a vacation has bought time - free time, at least, and presumably it's time being spent on something they'd rather be doing than working.

Also, when we spend money on any labor-saving device we're exchanging money for time. IOW, we spent time to make money, which we used to buy a labor-saving device which saves us time. So we spent time to make time, with a conversion into money and a second conversion out of money in the middle. In that case I think it does work both ways.

[LouisianaLobster]

What you say is true. You can paint your own kitchen, but you can also pay someone to do it for you. In that case you have bought/saved time with your money.

However, in the case of "Time heals all wounds" this is not the case. You cannot pay someone else to do your grieving, and you can't buy a machine to do it for you. You just have to 'sit it out', and this sort of time can't be bought.

[PatrickHenry]

8. Mr. Stace says that my writings are "extremely obscure," and this is a matter as to which the author [Russell speaking in the third person about himself] is the worst of all possible judges. I must therefore accept his opinion. [Ding, ding, ding!] As I have a very intense desire to make my meaning plain, I regret this.

— BERTRAND RUSSELL, "Reply to Criticisms," in P. A. Schilpp. ed., The Philosophy of Bertrand Russell (Evanston, IL: The Library of Living Philosophers), p. 707

Russell is obviously being silly here, effecting a most uncharacteristic humility. He is sarcastically accepting the criticism of someone he may well regard as a fool, merely because it would be -- to his critics -- arrogant for Russell to point out the great clarity of his writings, and presumably the large number of people who would agree with that assessment. (Personally, I've always found Russell to be extremely clear in his prose.)

Anyway, he's pretending to accept a conclusion for the reason that he is too ignorant to judge whether it may in fact be right or wrong. This is probably an Argument Ad Ignorantiam, but I'm not certain of this. It's fairly common, as when people refuse to examine a matter, saying: "Who am I to judge?"

[general_re]

Hmmm. I think you're overthinking this one, although if Russell had included the full quote from Stace (which I don't have handy), it would have been helpful. If I say "Joe Blow is an extremely obscure historical figure", what do I generally mean by that?

[PatrickHenry]

If I say "Joe Blow is an extremely obscure historical figure", what do I generally mean by that?

Ah, I had missed the ambiguity. There is a potential double meaning in: "Mr. Stace says that my writings are 'extremely obscure' ..." I had assumed that the critic was saying Russell's writings lack clarity; and I ignored the other meaning, as in "Russell is an all-but-forgotten writer." But I don't think that's the fallacy we're supposed to spot. Russell goes on to say: "As I have a very intense desire to make my meaning plain ..." so I think, from the context, that the potential ambiguity is one which we can ignore. I'll stick with my analysis.

[general_re]

Russell goes on to say: "As I have a very intense desire to make my meaning plain ..."

That's my point - I think Stace probably intended it in the sense of Russell being an unknown, unread writer, but Russell (intentionally) chose to take it as meaning that his work was unclear. Hence, Russell engaged in a bit of equivocation about the meaning of the word "obscure" as a flippant way of dismissing a critic that he didn't take all that seriously to begin with - if you're familiar with Stace, it's not at all surprising that Russell didn't take him particularly seriously.

And the ultimate irony is, of course, that nowadays, sixty-odd years later, W.T. Stace is the one who is obscure, albeit perhaps not "extremely" obscure ;)

[PatrickHenry]

I think Stace probably intended it in the sense of Russell being an unknown, unread writer ...

I donno ... That's a difficult interpretation for me. Russell, during his lifetime, was an international celebrity. The only thing that makes sense (to me) is that the critic was talking about the clarity of Russell's his writing -- and that too is nonsensical. Either way, it was neat for Russell, whose reputation for brilliance was unquestioned, to dismiss someone he regarded as a hack critic by saying: "Well, I guess you must be right." I'll still stick with my analysis, but I've been wrong before. As you know, in his declining years, Russell became a kook for pacifism, but in his prime he was awesome.

[general_re]

I think Stace intended it as an insult, to be truthful. While Stace is obscure these days, it wasn't always so. His main bag was mysticism, and an attempt to explore mystical experiences (visions, revelations, dreams, et cetera) as though they were real phenomena, indicative of some reality external to oneself. Given that, it should hardly be surprising that he had little use for Russell, and Russell for him. But like I said, these days, Stace is the obscure one, getting what little play he gets in New-Agey crystal-gripping circles, although he did enjoy a bit of a resurgence in the '60's with the Timothy Leary/Carlos Castaneda-types, for obvious reasons.

[PatrickHenry]

So what was Russell's fallacy?

[general_re]

Equivocation is my guess, although your answer is arguable too, I think.

[PatrickHenry]

Whatever it was, Russell certainly knew his logic, so if he's guilty of anything it's being a smart-ass. (It was cruel, selecting as an example for this test a piece of irony written by a logician.)

[general_re]

Quite so. I've no doubt that Russell did it entirely on purpose.

[PatrickHenry]

It's somewhat as if Einstein had said to the TimeCube guy: "Yeah, I'm not qualified to judge my own work, so you must be right."

[general_re]

In effect. I don't Stace was quite as far out as the Timecube guy - he did allow that most people who hear voices and such are just plain bananas, IIRC - but that's about the size of it.