Norm Geras has revealed the main tenets of the so-called "New Towelism" in an attempt to find some middle ground between our positions (Norm's here, and here; mine here, here and here). Alas, if the compromise has already had political implications, the chances of a full and genuine reconciliation appear slim.
I've been too busy lately to give this matter the thought that is deserves. So let me simply make a few modest points. First, my interests in this matter are more literary and philosophical than Norm's, who, like a good Marxist is impatient to change the world of towels where philosophers have hitherto only striven to understand it. I've been meaning to blog about the theme of towels in Borges, and George Steiner's perceptive remarks about the subject ("In the entire canon, towels were never so perceptively examined as in Borges' masterful 'Pierre Menard, weaver of the Don Quixote towel'." - It's a bit annoying that Steiner, as usual, can't pass up a chance to rub your nose in the fact that he's read the canon and you haven't. But when the man's right, he's right.)
I've also been meaning to take issue with Leo Strauss' treatment of the Socratic dialogue on towels I dug up the other day. Strauss argues, against the firm scholarly consensus, and rather perversely in my view, that Plato is in fact the author of the dialogue. Even worse, he suggests that the Plato intends there to recommend small towels, against the plain meaning of the text. Alas, as I say, both these literary and scholarly diversions will have to wait until I've dealt with other matters.
I can't resist one point - only a dialectical one, please understand - about a compromise suggested by one of Norm's correspondents. The correspondent writes, with Norm's approval:
I think the reason for your preference is to do with what I guess to be your temperament and the way in which you like to dry yourself. I imagine you do it quickly and with great efficiency, using the towel on various parts of your body until you're dry. I, on the other hand, just wrap the towel around myself and wander around with it there whilst doing stuff, until I get dry (as I suppose to be true also of WotN and Chris Young). With this method, dryness is obviously achieved more quickly the more of your body is covered with the towel; so, clearly it's better to have a bigger towel if it's the method you use. Otherwise, you may have a point. (Of course, during the winter, it's also better to have a bigger towel, just for that moment when you get out of the bath. You don't want to be cold, do you?)To which I can only say: If this is Norm's idea of a compromise, I would like to see his idea of capitulation! For there is still enough here, even if I grant this point for dialectical purposes, to convict Norm of irrationality. Proof:
1. England is a dark, cold, damp place.
2. Anyone emerging from from a bath in a dark, cold, damp place will need a large towel to stay warm.
3. Norm is in England.
4. Therefore, Norm will need a large towel to stay warm.
But Norm insists, contra 4 that he doesn't need a large towel to stay warm. He is therefore deeply irrational. How firm are my premises? Well, I've never been to England, but I have it on good authority that it is a very dark, cold, damp place. 2 is drawn from the passage just quoted, which Norm approves. 3 seems hard to deny. The argument is valid, and so 4 follows whether you like it or not.
And thus does the vice of reason groan shut, with truth held firmly in her grip.
Posted by Chris at July 2, 2004 09:48 AM