Spring 1953 • Vol. XV No. 2 CommunicationsApril 1, 1953 |

On the Aristotelian Front

Sir: To give an accurate report on any closely reasoned discourse, as an indispensable preliminary to a fair criticism of it, is not easy, as can be seen by comparing almost any speculative work with the accounts of it in the standard "histories." But the effort is surely worth making; and what disturbs me in your discussion of Critics and Criticism (Autumn, 1952) is that in place of reading—which would first try to make sense of the author's arguments in relation to the problems, principles, and devices of reasoning by which they were generated—you have consistently substituted translation, whereby the particular contentions of the authors are restated in a context of terms and methods which are not their own and in the light of which their positions are bound to seem either absurd or false. For example, anyone depending on your review would inevitably conclude that the authors are dogmatic Aristotelians. To select one of your statements from among many, "I can find no

Already have an account? Login

Join KR for even more to read.

Register for a free account to read five free pieces a month from our current issue and digital archive.
Register for Free and Read This Piece



Or become a subscriber today and get complete, immediate access to our digital archives at every subscription level.

Read More

One Day

By Wayne C. Booth

Sir: To give an accurate report on any closely reasoned discourse, as an indispensable preliminary to a fair criticism of it, is not easy, as can be seen by comparing […]

Subscribe

Your free registration with Kenyon review incudes access to exclusive content, early access to program registration, and more.

Donate

With your support, we’ll continue 
to cultivate talent and publish extraordinary literature from diverse voices around the world.