I it is interesting to bring up a discussion that took place in the comments.
A reader mentioned an article by Edward Rialti expressing a moral condemnation of Harry Potter because it contains a call to the practice of witchcraft.
Rialti wrote in L'Osservatore Romano, to counter another article published on the same page and signed by Paolo Gulisano. As Paul says Gulisano, the Osservatore Romano editorial policy was to talk about Harry Potter without giving the impression to express an official position. I read the concern in relation to the different opinions that the Catholic faithful have in the matter. Gulisano had invited Paul to write, but his article era tanto favorevole a Harry Potter, che per conservare la neutralità il giornale ha dovuto cercare un autore disposto a esprimere la versione opposta. Hanno trovato Rialti.
Rialti ha scritto un articolo che moltiplica le citazioni del Catechismo della Chiesa cattolica per dimostrare che la stregoneria e la superstizione sono ivi condannate. Poi altri mezzi di comunicazione hanno ripreso la notizia, menzionando il solo Rialti. Titolo: l'Osservatore romano condanna Harry Potter. Sarà questo il giudizio del Papa?
La cosa ha del paradossale: Rialti era stato ospitato dall'Osservatore romano proprio per mettere in chiaro che i due saggi esprimevano soltanto l'opinione dei rispettivi autori, e non il giudizio del Papa. I media avrebbero have reported both of the articles: it would lead to a free debate between Catholics, who expressed different views on a recent book. The reader could decide which of the views expressed seemed better informed and better reasoned.
Instead the effect on the media has been the opposite. What might appear an enlightened discussion seemed a manifestation of obscurantism. Wonderful opportunity for those seeking to put the Pope in a bad light. If
Rialti is Catholic, which states, of which I have no reason to doubt, it could make him think. Is it not possible that the tone used by Rialti contains in itself something inappropriate? I think not to be less Catholic Rialto, but I appreciate Harry Potter as do many other Christians, Catholics or not. I'd rather Rialti had refrained from condemning the stegoneria sciorinare quotations taken from the Catechism. He thought maybe we did not know that Dumbledore's Army, the Christian faith has always been contrary to the practice of magic? Or perhaps he wanted to give the impression that we were inconsistent with our faith? I prefer to think that Rialti, finding writing in L'Osservatore Romano on a subject he knew little, thought it useful to read up on the Catechism. Save it because the good faith of the text. And we turn to an examination of the logic of its arguments.
Here's my note: Rialti confused with the more minor of a syllogism. Got it? Not so much. Allow me then to remember the most famous of the syllogism: 1
premise: Socrates is a man
second premise: men are mortal
conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
The premise is that a minor premise, because it contains a particular opinion, valid for the individual Socrates. The second premise is that more, because it contains a Last Judgement, delivered in such a way as to propose it as valid for all men.
Rialti thesis is that Harry Potter promotes among its readers the magical practices. The thesis is proven with arguments? No! To do so, he would have to take steps to Harry Potter. Instead of trying the minor premise, the columnist addresses his efforts to establish the major premise. To that end, the Catechism quotes, text that can be expected well accepted among the readers of the newspaper in which he writes.
The confusion between the two premises is a serious logical error, which invalidates the whole argument. Aristotle would say that it becomes a fallacy. To hide the weaknesses of the minor premise, it opens a discussion on the major premise. Hapless those who follow him on that plane.
correlative error of Rialto and the error of those among his critics have challenged the major premise, defending the practice of magic, or challenging the Church's right to express an opinion. This would have equated the Rialto, agreeing to move the debate on the morality of magic. But as the discussion can become infinite. That is what happens when you confuse the major premise and minor premise: the endless discussions and become free of the construct.
0 comments:
Post a Comment