In a message dated 03/23/2002 10:42:41 AM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:


> There seems to be something fundamentally fallacious in stating that an
> analysis is invalid if the writer doesn't produce significant work.
> That's akin to saying that Plato has nothing significant to say about
> ethics because he couldn't apply his ethical analysis/thinking to his
> own life.  Where is the logic in that?
>
> jim
>

It seems to me that the intent of what I said is perfectly clear.  I didn't
say that the person who did the analysis had to do the work -- although in
the present instance, the discussion concerned Paul Lake, who is a poet, and
whose analyses doesn't seem to help his poetry.  btw, do you have some inside
story on whether or not Plato did or did not apply his ethics to his life?

jb...