Journalistic ethics?

THINKING ABOUT OXYMORONS

What is an oxymoron? Montrealman has given some thought to the question and, as may be confidently assumed, his reflection has borne ripe philosophical fruit. Ordinarily, of course, an oxymoron is conceived in terms of the self-contradictory conjunction of opposites. A “happily married bachelor” would be an example of what we might call an “absolute oxymoron” since the two terms of the oxymoron, “married” and “bachelor,” logically cancel each other out. But are all oxymorons of this sort?

Take Glooscap’s example: “Journalistic ethics – an oxymoron as old as the printed word.” Clearly, this is not an absolute oxymoron since journalists do not lack ethics as a matter of logical necessity. Some journalists may, in fact, actually BE ethical. So what sort of oxymoron is it? I claim that it is a “tendentious oxymoron,” one designed to lead the reader to believe that all journalists are not ethical. It is, in other words, a false oxymoron, not an oxymoron at all. Glooscap, as a consequence, should be sued by the journalists for libel.

Take Montrealman’s example: “Philosophically Reflective Bitches: an oxymoron as old as Bitch itself.” As with Glooscap’s “journalistic ethics,” Montrealman’s “philosophically unreflective bitches” is not an absolute oxymoron since there is no logial necessity that all bitches be philosophically unreflective. However, unllike Glooscap’s example, Montrealman’s is not a tendentious oxymoron since it does not aim to mislead the reader but simply to report on the facts of the case, i.e., that bitches are invariably philosophically unreflective and, as icing on the cake, Montrealman has employed philosophical reflection to demonstrate the distinction. As such it is, as was to be expected coming from Montrealman, a superior oxymoron.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

THINKING ABOUT OXYMORONS: A POSTSCRIPT & AN RSVP

Additional reflection on oxymorons has led Montrealman to further refine the concept. Two points require clarification: (1) Can the nature of Montrealman’s oxymoron, those “Philosophically Reflective Bitches,” be given a proper name? and (2) Why is his oxymoron an oxymoron in the first place?

(1) As has been seen, “Philosophically Reflective Bitches” is neither an “absolute oxymoron” (AO) or a “tendentious oxymoron” (TO). Rather it is an “Empirically Verifiable Oxymoron” (EVO) since it is possible to factually determine whether bitches are or are not philosophically reflective. Invariably, they are not.

(2) “Philosophically Reflective Bitches” is an oxymoron in the first place because of the nature of a bitch itself. To BE a bitch is to be trivial. It is to be trifling, of no importance. But, by definition, to be trivial, trifling and of no importance is precisely to lack a philosophically reflective dimension. It is, in other words, entailed in what it MEANS to be a bitch.

RSVP

: troondon formosus (March 23, 10:35AM)

To ask where humility is to be found on a scale having the categories “absolute” and “tendentious” at its extremes is to be incoherent since humility is a quality of humans and not of oxymorons. It is a “category mistake.” Back to the drawing board, Troon!

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVPs

: Col. Ivansonofabitch (March 25, 11:13AM)

Is that what you shout out on the roof? I’m sure your wife must be mortified.
No, I think maybe it’s time for a change. Go with “Bjork! Bjork!”

: Paingirl (11:42AM)

Sorry to hear about the greyhound. I know these things cut deeply. Wynnie and Lily send their regards.

: troondon formosus (3:19PM)

Um, no Troon, I don’t recall ever being into the Three Stooges but then the early stages of the “talkies” were before my time.

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

RSVP

: Col. Ivan Sonofabitch (March 25, 4:26PM)

How did Rommel respond? What was he doing when observed through the binoculars?
Was his behaviour provocative?

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!

THINKING ABOUT GERMAN FORESKINS

: Col. Ivan Sonofabitch (March 26, 9:36AM)

“For numerous reasons I somehow doubt that his Afrika Corps counterparts were keen to do the same.”

I think we’ve stumbled onto a new and pristine field of research in WW11 scholarship – the respective perceptions of the foreskin in the British 8th. Army and the German Afrika Corps. In the case of the former matters seem pretty straightforward if the medical surgeon’s self-circumcision is to be taken as standard. However, if Ivan’s “doubts” are to be given creedence, things were not so matter-of-fact with the Germans.

Initially, one supposes that their reluctance to be circumcised had something to do with anti-Semitism. Pulling down the pants was a widespread Gestapo practice to identify suspected Jews during the Nazi period. However, a moment’s reflection reveals that even the youngest of the soldiers of the Afrika Corps would have been born no later than circa 1925, seven years before the Nazi rise to power in Germany. The most obvious reason for their reluctance to lose their foreskins does not hold water.

Everything, then, comes down to those “numerous reasons” of which Ivan speaks. What were they, Ivan? That “new and pristine field of research” depends on your reply.
(In any case, the jig was up for the Germans if George C. Scott could observe Rommel in Bavaria from his tank in North Africa.)

A pleasure as always.

Cheerio!