I suppose the various hardliners, be they philosophical, critical or religious, do have one use left. They seem always to be able to stir the pot, however little left there may be in it. :)
Ken Armstrong <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Thanks, CR. Of course it's not even vaguely fatuous and is particularly
>useful in refutation of the run of Eliot critics who are constantly
>trying to pin him to the wall as the founder of that now "debunked"
>method of criticism: The New Criticism. However, intelligence as he
>defines it is still not very popular in much criticism and comes in a
>distant second to ideology if not also to inattention/lack of imagination.
>On 7/16/2013 3:07 PM, Carrol Cox wrote:
>> CR: T.S. Eliot on Aristotle -- an excerpt Interesting, isn't it?
>> Actually, no. The statement is utterly fatuous.
>> The text quoted:
>> In today's excerpt - T.S. Eliot on Aristotle. Eliot, one of the towering
>> poets and literary critics of the 20th century, is discussing the nature of
>> Aristotle's genius in his article, 'The Perfect Critic'. The importance of
>> the statement here is his assertion that great analysis is not the outcome
>> of some repeatable process or method but instead comes from intelligence
>> "Aristotle is a person who has suffered from the adherence of persons who
>> must be regarded less as his disciples than as his sectaries. One must be
>> firmly distrustful of accepting Aristotle in a canonical spirit; this is to
>> lose the whole living force of him. He was primarily a man of not only
>> remarkable but universal intelligence. ...
>> "... in his short and broken treatise he provides an eternal example-not of
>> laws, or even of method, for there is no method except to be very
>> intelligent, but of intelligence itself swiftly operating the analysis of
>> sensation to the point of principle and definition."