April 9, 2009 Humanities Core Course Today's Plan 1)Today we'll only talk about Essay Seven.

Essay 7 asks you to give a critical analysis of a counter-argument. Kastely (from your discovery task) can help you with this. In the beginning Kastely seems to hold that Creon and Antigone aren't "arguing," but are only engaged in monologue. Later on, however, Kastely goes on to seemingly hold that Creon and Antigone suffer from only having engaging in arguments of the Formalistic kind. But if they are arguing Formalistically, then they are arguing in some way. Perhaps Kastely is equivocating on the notion of arguing. Is there arguing with out the attempt to persuade a listener really arguing? What would happen if we asked Creon or Antigone what they were doing when they were talking to their interlocutor? Would they say, "Oh, I'm not talking to Creon, I'm just talking out loud?" Would Creon say, "why are you asking me what I'm doing, isn't it obvious, I'm trying to get Antigone to change her mind?" Kastely doesn't seem to do the "math" in this regard.

What do you think? How many definitions of "argument" are there? What does the definition of the word "argument" entail? How does "argument" relate to "persuasion?" What else is related to the notion or definition of "argument?"

Here's what Kastely seems to say about the definition of "argument:" Formalism seeks to defend a pre-existing definition of something, and Formalism starts with that definition and seeks to keep that definition throughout the argument, but Inquiry seeks to come up with a definition of something, and Inquiry starts with a notion of something and is open to changing that notion as a result of the argument. Creon seeks to defend his pre-existing definition of the state as over everything, and Creon is not open to changing his definition of state over everything, and Antigone seeks to defend her pre-existing definition of the family as off limits, and Antigone is not open to changing her definition of family as off limits, but Kastely would have Creon and Antigone start off differently, and end differntly.

Kastely would have them engage in inquiry. Here's what might look like: Creon would start off with the idea that the state is important, but Creon would come to realize that the family is important for the state, and Antigone would start off with the idea that the family is important, but Antigone would come to realize that the state is important for the family. Creon would realize that the state needs the family, and Antigone would realize that family needs the state. Why would Creon would realize that the state needs the family, and Antigone would realize that family needs the state?

Does this solve anything? Formalism, Kastely tells us, sufferes form failing to reach any resolution... but is Inquiry any different?

Consider how there is a kind of resolution in your essay. Notice how the difference between Formalism and Inquiry applies to the creation of a thesis.

Let's look at Kastely's argument again, but this time, in light of our new application to Antigone: Recall, his thesis is something like this: in the humanities, when teaching students about arguing, we should focus less on formal arguments which end up doing violence to difference, but should instead focus on arguments as forms of inquiry which acknowledges and tolerates difference. But we are in a world which requires action, not the mere tolerance of difference.