The New York Times blogger Stanley Fish wrote an endless post explaining the purpose of his inflammatory Think Again blog. He says that the purpose of it is to analyze the arguments but not make them.

I am analyzing arguments rather than making them; or, to be more precise, I am making arguments about arguments, especially ones I find incoherent or insufficiently examined.

He tries to take a completely neutral stance on the issues behind the arguments he analyzes. Instead, his goal is to point out the failings or strengths of opinions that interest him. Even if only a fraction of readers actually read his blog for the arguments, that’s still a substantial amount of people. (This particular post that I write about got over 300 comments.)

The most respected newspapers, even before they were tainted with the self-imposed scandalous errors to come, believed that pure objectivity is unattainable; that although someone can always push to try not to take a side or preference, achieving that is impossible. Striving to be objective is reasonable, but not gaining it. Fish ignores this. He says

I am agnostic on those issues and interested only in the way they are playing out in our present cultural moment. When, for example, I wrote three columns criticizing the atheist tracts written by Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, I was motivated not by a belief in God — which I may or may not have, you’ll never know — but by what I took to be sloppy, schoolboy reasoning that was passing itself off as wisdom.

But what’s the point? Why argue just for the hell of the argument? A number of people (including our very own Ben/JadedHack) consider this recreation. It’s a weird sensation, argument is. After I argue, win or lose, I always have this sort of adrenaline rush. I don’t like it, some people do. But Fish isn’t catering to only these bicker junkies, albeit unintentionally. He’s touching topics that passionately inflame people.

Now that I think about it, maybe the purpose of this particular post is to deter readers who actually think Fish has a preference in the issues he’s critiquing. They’re right though. There’s no real way in avoiding the creation of an opinion when analyzing another opinion…or if there is, it’s not unavoidable. Fish’s preference has to become a factor sometimes. Is it really possible to always denounce any stance because of the way the argument is presented rather than the depth of the facts for one side or the ridiculousness of the proposal? More importantly, is it even worthwhile to argue about arguing? Perhaps as a way of keeping all arguments sharp. That seems like too massive a task for one blog.

Because I’m constantly moving around from year to year, it’s hard to really understand lower tier politics at the congressional or gubernatorial level. There’s a whole history that can only be understood with long time familiarity. Thankfully Chicago now has The Beachwood Reporter which kindly provided the following comparison, restraining any Chicagoan from exclaiming that our governor, Governor Rod Blogevich, is better than Eliot Spitzer:

Blago vs. Spitzer

By The Beachwood Heads of State Affairs Desk
A gubernatorial death match.

*

Spitzer: Client 9
Blago: Public Official A

*

Spitzer: Cheats on wife
Blago: Cheats with wife

*

Spitzer: Spends money on blowjobs
Blago: Takes money for state jobs

*

Spitzer: Does business with whores
Blago: Does business with whores

*

Spitzer: Secret affair with Chrissy
Blago: Secret affairs with Tony

*

Spitzer: Has testicular virility issues
Blago: Has testicular virility issues

*

Blago: Governs by press release
Spitzer: “Governs” by “early release”

*

Spitzer: Doesn’t finish out term because of scandal
Blago: Doesn’t finish out term because of scandal

-

- Rick Kaempfer, Eric Emery, Steve Rhodes

-

READER SUBMISSIONS
From Spencer Maus:

Spitzer: Pays to get screwed.
Blago: Gets paid to screw us.