{"id":5090,"date":"2021-10-21T13:35:48","date_gmt":"2021-10-21T11:35:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=5090"},"modified":"2025-06-14T18:16:49","modified_gmt":"2025-06-14T16:16:49","slug":"kettle-argumentation-e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/kettle-argumentation-e\/","title":{"rendered":"Kettle Argumentation"},"content":{"rendered":"

KETTLE Argumentation<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

A co-oriented condition is unsufficient to characterize a well-articulated convergent <\/em><\/a>argumentation. Co-oriented arguments must be consistent<\/em>. This is the essence of Freud’s point in The Interpretation of Dreams<\/em> [1900], in where he uses the kettle argument<\/em> as an analogy to interpret the content of his dream about \u201cthe injection given to Irma.\u201d
\nBoth the dream and its interpretation are incoherent<\/em> defenses, offering good but incompatible<\/em> justifications.<\/p>\n

I noticed, it is true, that these explanations of Irma’s pains (which agreed in exculpating me) were not entirely consistent with one another, and indeed that they were mutually exclusive. The whole plea\u2013for the dream was nothing else\u2013reminded one vividly of the defense put forward by the man who was charged by one of his neighbors with having given him back a borrowed kettle in a damaged condition. The defendant asserted first, that he had given it back undamaged; secondly, that the kettle had a hole in it when he borrowed it; and thirdly, that he had never borrowed a kettle from his neighbor at all. So much the better: if only a single one of these three lines of defense were to be accepted as valid, the man would have to be acquitted. (Freud [1900], pp. 143-144)<\/span><\/p>\n

The neighbor collects all the possible defenses, as laid out in the stasis<\/a> theory.<\/p>\n

(1) The accused denies the accusation: \u00ab\u00a0I returned it undamaged\u201d<\/em>, creating a question of fact<\/em> (conjectural stasis): \u201cDid the neighbor or did he not return the cauldron in good condition?<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

(2) The accused then claims that \u00ab\u00a0the kettle had a hole in it when he borrowed it<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0.
\n<\/em>This contradicts what he said in (1) and what he will say in (3). Thus, he produces a kind of counter-accusation<\/em>, shifting the responsibility for the damage to his accuser or a third party, hence the question \u00ab\u00a0Who pierced the kettle?<\/em>\u00ab\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

(3) The accused finally claims that \u201cI never borrowed your kettle\u201d. <\/em>He thus denies what he had implicitly admitted in (1), which leads a second question of fact:<\/em> \u201cDid he borrow the kettel?\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

The damage could also be\u00a0recognized as such <\/em>and reduced:<\/em> It’s a tiny hole, it’s nothing at all, and can beeasily repaired.<\/em><\/p>\n

In fact, in the case of the kettle as presented by Freud, one could argue that the unconscious<\/em> is not defending itself, but preparing the conscious<\/em> defense, similar to how an accused person hesitates between different defense strategies. A little linguistic editing allows these strategies to be adjusted:<\/p>\n

It was not a formal loan of<\/em> equipment (3) but a request for friendly and one-time assistance. Your kettle was in bad condition<\/em> (2) when I borrowed it from you, it was leaking, and it was bound to end up leaking badly. In fact I returned it to you in the same condition <\/em>(1). Therefore, you are responsible<\/em> for the poor condition of the pot. In any case it wasn’t me but your friend Peter<\/em> made the soup in your pot that evening.<\/span><\/p>\n

The unconscious does not argue any worse than the conscious mind.<\/p>\n

In practice, the main thing is that the various defenses are convergent (co-oriented). To eliminate their contradictions, it is enough to resort to polyphony, and have different allied speakers express them, if possible at different times, or before different instances, or even as hypotheses.<\/p>\n

The Chinese writer Lao She (1899-1966) \u201cwas one of the first victims of the Cultural Revolution.\u201d<\/em> After being tortured, \u201che was found dead on August 24, 1966. The official version is that he committed suicide by drowning\u201d (Wikipedia, Lao She). However, this version of events is disputed by Simon Leys.
\n<\/em><\/span>Regarding this issue, the Western Maoists have adopted an original defense strategy, which is articulated in three points. First, Lao She did not commit suicide; it is a Taiwanese invention. (2) By the way, his suicide is perfectly explicable, given his bourgeois mentality. (3) Anyway, his affair is completely uninteresting and does not deserve further attention.
\n<\/span>Simon Leys, Essays on China<\/em>, 1998. [1]<\/span><\/p>\n

The adverbs \u201cby the way\u201d<\/em> and \u201canyway\u201d<\/em> present (2) and (3) as superfluous additions to the background, (1) which should be sufficient to settle the matter, see indicator<\/a>.<\/p>\n

As in the case of the cauldron, eliminating the contradictions is as simpe as having them voiced by allied speakers, if possible at different times, or before different instances. They can even be presented as floating hypotheses, which should be seriously investigated.<\/p>\n

Coherence of Convergent Argumentation<\/span><\/h2>\n

We refer to this as a kettle argument<\/em>, but we should really be \u00a0talking about the argumentation of the kettle<\/em> to denote a discourse that supports a conclusion from a series of convergent arguments that exonerate the speaker, but which are incompatible with each other, see convergence<\/a>; coherence<\/a>; ad hominem<\/em><\/a>; contrasts<\/a>.<\/p>\n

The cauldron case shows that, for convergent argumentation to be well-formed, the arguments must be both co-oriented and coherent. In any case, introducing introduction of a simple but<\/em> removes the incoherence: \u00ab\u00a0I don’t need any clothes, but since there’s a sale, I’ll buy some.\u00a0\u00bb But<\/em> is a favorite of the subconscious.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

KETTLE Argumentation A co-oriented condition is unsufficient to characterize a well-articulated convergent argumentation. Co-oriented arguments must be consistent. This is the essence of Freud’s point in The Interpretation of Dreams [1900], in where he uses the kettle argument as an analogy to interpret the content of his dream about \u201cthe injection given to Irma.\u201d Both […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5090","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5090","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=5090"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5090\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14370,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5090\/revisions\/14370"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=5090"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=5090"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=5090"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}