Literature destroyed us: we've always been agreed on that. The literary temptation was fatal. Of course, it would be different if read literature alongside philosophy, W. says, but literature, for us, could not help infecting our philosophy.
Yes, that's where it all went wrong. But don't you admire the fact that we feel something about literature?, I ask him. Don't you think it's what saves us? But W. is not persuaded. It makes us vague and full of pathos. That's all we have – pathos.
The argumentum ad misericordiam, that's the name for it, W. says, the fallacy of appealing to pity or sympathy, which is to say the basic argument we give on every occasion. Isn't why we always give examples of nuns and dogs in our presentations? Isn't it why we give our presentations with tears in our eyes?
Lars Iyer's Blog 