-
Love is Fallacy
by
Max Shulman
Cool was I and
logical. Keen, calculating, perspicacious, acute
and astute
—
I was all
of these. My brain was as powerful as a
dynamo, precise as a chemist?s scales, as
penetrating as a scalpel.
And
—
think of
it!
—
I only
eighteen.
It is not often
that one so young has such a giant intellect.
Take, for example, Petey
Bellows, my
roommate at the university. Same age, same
background, but dumb as an ox.
A nice
enough fellow, you understand, but nothing
upstairs. Emotional type. Unstable.
Impressionable. Worst of all, a
faddist. Fads, I submit, are the very negation of
reason. To
be swept up in every new
craze that comes along, to surrender oneself to
idiocy just
because everybody else is
doing it
—
this, to me, is the
acme of mindlessness. Not,
however, to
Petey.
One afternoon I found
Petey lying on his bed with an expression of such
distress on
his face that I immediately
diagnosed appendicitis. “Don?t move,” I said,
“Don?t take a
laxative. I?ll get a
doctor.”
“Raccoon,” he
mumb
led thickly.
“Raccoon?” I said, pausing in my
flight.
“I want a raccoon
coat,” he wailed.
I
perceived that his trouble was not physical, but
mental. “Why do you want a raccoon
coat?”
“I should
have known it,” he cried, pounding his temples. “I
should have known they?d
come back when
the Charleston came back. Like a fool I spent all
my money for textbooks,
and now I can?t
get a raccoon coat.”
“Can
you mean,” I said incredulously, “that people are
actually wearing raccoon coats
again?”
“All the
Big Men on Campus are wearing them. Where?ve you
been?”
“In the library,” I
said, naming a place not frequented by Big Men on
Campus.
He leaped from the
bed and paced the room. “I?ve got to have a
raccoon coat,” he
said passionately.
“I?ve got to!”
“Petey, why?
Look at
it rationally. Raccoon coats
are unsanitary. They shed. They
smell
bad. They weigh too much. They?re unsightly.
They—”
“You don?t
understand,” he interrupted impatiently. “It?s the
thing to do. Don?t you want
to be in
the swim?”
“No,” I said
truthfully.
“Well, I do,” he
declared. “I?d give anything for a raccoon coat.
Anything!”
My brain, that
precision instrument, slipped into high gear.
“Anything?” I asked,
looking at him
narrowly.
“Anything,” he
affirmed in ringing tones.
I
stroked my chin thoughtfully. It so happened that
I knew where to get my hands on a
raccoon coat. My father had had one in
his undergraduate days; it lay now in a trunk in
the
attic back home. It also happened
that Petey had something I wanted. He didn?t
have
it
exactly,
but at least he had first rights on it. I refer to
his girl, Polly Espy.
I had
long coveted Polly Espy. Let me emphasize that my
desire for this young
woman was not
emotional in nature. She was, to be sure, a girl
who excited the emotions,
but I was not
one to let my heart rule my head. I wanted Polly
for a shrewdly calculated,
entirely
cerebral reason.
I was a
freshman in law school. In a few years I would be
out in practice. I was well
aware of
the importance of the right kind of wife in
furthering a lawyer?s career.
The
successful lawyers I had observed were,
almost without exception, married to beautiful,
gracious, intelligent women. With one
omission, Polly fitted these specifications
perfectly.
Beautiful she
was. She was not yet of pin-up proportions, but I
felt that time would
supply the lack.
She already had the makings.
Gracious she was. By gracious I mean
full of graces. She had an erectness of
carriage, an ease of bearing, a poise
that clearly indicated the best of breeding. At
table
her manners were exquisite. I had
seen her at the Kozy Kampus Korner eating the
specialty of the
house
—
a sandwich that
contained scraps of pot roast, gravy, chopped
nuts, and a dipper of
sauerkraut
—
without even
getting her fingers moist.
Intelligent she was not. In fact, she
veered in the opposite direction. But I believed
that under my guidance she would
smarten up. At any rate, it was worth a try. It
is, after all,
easier to make a
beautiful dumb girl smart than to make an ugly
smart girl beautiful.
“Petey,” I said, “are you in love with
Polly Espy?”
“I think she?s
a keen kid,” he replied, “but I don?t know if
you?d call it love. Why?”
“Do you,” I asked, “have any kind of
formal arrangement with her? I mean are you
going steady or anything like
that?”
“No. We see each
other quite a bit, but we both have other dates.
Why?”
“Is there,” I asked,
“any other man for whom she has a particular
fondness?”
“Not that I know
of. Why?”
I nodded with
satisfaction. “In other words, if you were out of
the picture, the field
would be open.
Is that
right?”
“I guess so. What are you getting
at?”
“Nothing , nothing,” I
said innocently, and took my suitcase out the
closet.
“Where are you
going?” asked Petey.
“Home
for weekend.” I threw a few things into the
bag.
“Listen,” he said,
clutching my arm eagerly, “while you?re home, you
couldn?t get
some money from your old
man, could you, and lend it to me so I can buy a
raccoon
coat?”
“I
may do better than that,” I said with a mysterious
wink and closed my bag and left.
“Look,” I said to Petey when I
got
back Monday morning. I threw open
the suitcase
and revealed the huge,
hairy, gamy object that my father had worn in his
Stutz Bearcat in
1925.
“Holy Toledo!” said Petey reverently.
He plunged his hands into the raccoon coat and
then his face. “Holy Toledo!” he
repeated fifteen or twenty times.
“Would you like it?” I
asked.
“Oh yes!” he cried,
clutching the greasy pelt to him. Then a canny
look came into his
eyes. “What do you
want for it?”
“Your girl.” I
said, mincing no words.
“Polly?” he said in a horrified
whisper. “You want Polly?”
“That?s right.”
He flung the coat from him. “Never,” he
said stoutly.
I shrugged.
“Okay. If you don?t want to be in the swim, I
guess it?s your business.”
I
sat down in a chair and pretended to read a book,
but out of the corner of my eye I
kept
watching Petey. He was a torn man. First he looked
at the coat with the expression of
a
waif at a bakery window. Then he turned away and
set his jaw resolutely. Then he
looked
back at the coat, with even more longing in his
face. Then he turned away, but with
not
so much resolution this time. Back and forth his
head swiveled, desire waxing,
resolution waning. Finally he didn?t
turn away at all; he just stood and stared with
mad lust
at the coat.
“It isn?t as though I was in love with
Polly,” he said thickly. “Or going steady or
anything like that.”
“That?s right,” I murmured.
“What?s Polly to me, or me to
Polly?”
“Not a thing,” said
I.
“It?s just been a casual
kick—just a few laughs, that?s all.”
“Try on the coat,” said I.
He complied. The coat bunched high over
his ears and dropped all the way down to
his shoe tops. He looked like a mound
of dead raccoons. “Fits fine,” he said
happily.
I rose from my
chair. “Is it a deal?” I asked, extending my
hand.
He swallowed. “It?s a
deal,” he sai
d and shook my
hand.
I had my first date
with Polly the following evening. This was in the
nature of a survey;
I wanted to find
out just how much work I had to do to get her mind
up to the standard I
required. I took
her first to dinner. “Gee, that was a delish
dinner,” she said as we left the
restaurant. Then I took her to a movie.
“Gee, that was a marvy movie,” she said as we left
the theatre. And then I took her home.
“Gee, I had a sensaysh time,” she said as she bade
me good night.
I
went back to my room with a heavy heart. I had
gravely underestimated the size of
my
task. This girl?s lack of information was
terrifying. Nor would it be enough merely to
supply her with information. First she
had to be taught to
think
.
This loomed as a project of
no small
dimensions, and at first I was tempted to give her
back to Petey. But then I got to
thinking about her abundant physical
charms and about the way she entered a room and
the way she handled a knife and fork,
and I decided to make an effort.
I went about it, as in all things,
systematically. I gave her a course in logic. It
happened that I, as a law student, was
taking a course in logic myself, so I had all the
facts at my fingertips. “Poll?,” I said
to her when I picked her up on our next date,
“tonight
we a
re going over
to the Knoll and talk.”
“Oo,
terrif,” she replied. One thing I will say for
this girl: you would go far to find
another so agreeable.
We went to the Knoll, the campus
trysting place, and we sat down under an old oak,
and she looked at me
expe
ctantly. “What are we going to talk
about?” she asked.
“Logic.”
She
thought this over for a minute and decided she
liked it. “Magnif,” she said.
“Logic,” I said, clearing my throat,
“is the science of thinking. Before we can think
correctly, we must first learn to
recognize the common fallacies of logic. These we
will
take up tonight.”
“Wow
-
dow!” she
cried, clapping her hands delightedly.
I winced, but went bravely on. “First
let us examine the fallacy called Dicto
Simpliciter.”
“By
all means,” she urged, b
atting her
lashes eagerly.
“Dicto
Simpliciter means an argument based on an
unqualified generalization. For
example: Exercise is good. Therefore
everybody should exercise.”
“I agree,” said Polly earnestly. “I
mean exercise is wonderful. I mean it builds
th
e body
and
everything.”
“Polly,” I said
gently, “the argument is a fallacy.
Exercise is good
is an
unqualified
generalization. For
instance, if you have heart disease, exercise is
bad, not good. Many
people are ordered
by their doctors
not
to
exercise. You must
qualify
the generalization.
You must say
exercise is
usually
good, or
exercise is good
for most
people
. Otherwise
you have
committed a Dicto Simpliciter. Do you
see?”
“No,” she confessed.
“But this is marvy. Do more! Do more!”
“It will be better if you stop tugging
at my sleeve,” I told her, and when she desisted,
I
continued. “Next we take up a fallacy
called Hasty Generalization. Listen carefully: You
can?t speak French. Petey Bellows can?t
speak French. I must therefore conclude that
nobody at the
University of
Minnesota can speak French.”
“Really?” said Polly, amazed.
“
Nobody?
”
I hid my exasperation. “Polly, it?s a
fallacy. The generalization is reached too
hastily.
There are too few instances to
support such a conclusion.”
“Know any more fallacies?” she asked
breathlessly. “This is more fun than dancing
even.”
I fought
off a wave of despair. I was getting nowhere with
this girl, absolutely nowhere.
Still, I
am nothing if not persistent. I continued. “Next
comes Post Hoc. Listen to this: Let?s
not take Bill on our picnic. Every time
we take him out with us, it rains.”
“I know somebody just like that,” she
exclaimed. “A girl back home—
Eula
Becker, her
name is. It never fails.
Every single time we take her on a
picnic
—”
“Polly,”
I said sharply, “it?s a fallacy. Eula Becker
doesn?t
cause
the rain. She
has no
connection with the rain. You
are guilty of Post Hoc if you blame Eula
Becker.”
“I?ll never do it
again,” she promised contritely. “Are you mad at
me?”
I sighed. “No, Polly,
I?m not mad.”
“Then tell me
some more fallacies.”
“All
right. Let?s try Contradictory
Premises.”
“Yes, let?s,” she
chirped, blinking her eyes happily.
I frowned, but plunged ahead. “Here?s
an example of Contradictory Premises: If God
can do anything, can He make a stone
s
o heavy that He won?t be able to lift
it?”
“Of course,” she
replied promptly.
“But if He
can do anything, He can lift the stone,” I pointed
out.
“Yeah,” she said
thoughtfully. “Well, then I guess He can?t make
the stone.”
“But He can do
anything,” I remind
ed her.
She scratched her pretty, empty head.
“I?m all confused,” she admitted.
“Of course you are. Because when the
premises of an argument contradict each
other, there can be no argument. If
there is an irresistible force, there can be no
immovable object. If there is an
immovable object, there can be no irresistible
force. Get
it?”
“Tell me more of this keen stuff,” she
said eagerly.
I consulted my
watch. “I think we?d better call it a night. I?ll
take you home now, and
you go over all
the things you?ve learned. We?ll have another
session tomorrow night.”
I
deposited her at the girls? dormitory, where she
assured me that she had had a
perfectly
terrif evening, and I went glumly home to my room.
Petey lay snoring in his bed,
the
raccoon coat huddled like a great hairy beast at
his feet. For a moment I considered
waking him and telling him that he
could have his girl back. It seemed clear that my
project
was doomed to failure. The girl
simply had a logic-proof head.
But then I reconsidered. I had wasted
one evening; I might as well waste another.
Who knew? Maybe somewhere in the
extinct crater of her mind a few members still
smoldered. Maybe somehow I could fan
them into flame. Admittedly it was not a prospect
fraught with hope, but I decided to
give it one more try.
Seated
under the oak the next evening I said, “Our first
fallacy tonight is called Ad
Misericordiam.”
She quivered with delight.
“Listen closely,” I said. “A man
applies for a job. When the boss asks him what his
qualifications are, he replies that he
has a wife and six children at home, the wife is a
helpless cripple, the children have
nothing to eat, no clothes to wear, no shoes on
their
feet, there are no beds in the
house, no coal in the cellar, and winter is
coming.”
A tear rolled down
each of
Polly?s pink cheeks. “Oh, this
is awful, awful,” she sobbed.
“Yes, it?s awful,” I agreed, “but it?s
no argument. The man never answered the boss?s
question about his qualifications.
Instead he appealed to the boss?s sympathy. He
committed the fallacy of A
d
Misericordiam. Do you understand?”
“Have you got a handkerchief?” she
blubbered.
I handed her a
handkerchief and tried to keep from screaming
while she wiped her
eyes. “Next,” I
said in a carefully controlled tone, “we will
discuss False Analogy. Here is
an example: Students should be allowed
to look at their textbooks during examinations.
After all, surgeons have X-rays to
guide them during an operation, lawyers have
briefs to
guide them during a trial,
carpenters have blueprints to guide them when they
are building
a house. Why, then,
shouldn?t students be allowed to look at their
textbooks during an
examination?”
“There now,” she said enthusiastically,
“is the most marvy idea I?ve heard in
years.”
“Polly,” I said
testily, “the argument is all wrong.
Doc
tors, lawyers, and carpenters
aren?t taking a test to see how much
they have learned, but students are. The
situations
are altogether different,
and you can?t make an analogy between
them.”
“I still think it?s a
good idea,” said Polly.
“Nuts,” I muttered. Doggedly I pressed
on. “Next we?ll try Hypothesis Contrary to
Fact.”
“Sounds
yummy,” was Polly?s reaction.
“Listen: If Madame Curie had not
happened to leave a photographic plate in a drawer
with a chunk of pitchblende, the world
today would not know about
radium.”
“True,
true,” said Polly, nodding her head “Did you see
the movie? Oh, it just knocked
me out.
That Walter Pidgeon is so dreamy. I mean he
fractures me.”
“If you can
forget Mr. Pidgeon for a moment,” I said coldly,
“I would like to point out
that
statement is a fallacy. Maybe Madame Curie would
have discovered radium at some
later
date. Maybe somebody else would have discovered
it. Maybe any number of things
would
have happened. You can?t start with a hypothesis
that is not true and then draw any
supportable conclusions from
it.”
“They ought to put
Walter Pidgeon in more pictures,” said Polly, “I
hardly ever see him
any
more.”
One more chance, I
decided. But just one more. There is a limit to
what flesh and
blood can bear. “The
next fallacy is called Poisoning the
Well.”
“How cute!” she
gurgled.
“Two men are having
a debate. The first one gets up and says, ?My
opponent is a
notorious liar. You can?t
believe a word that he is going to say.? ... Now,
Polly, think. Think
hard. What?s
wrong?”
I watched her
closely as she knit her creamy brow in
concentration. Suddenly a
glimmer of
intelligence
—
the first I had
seen
—came into her eyes. “It?s not
fair,” she said
with indignation. “It?s
not a bit fair. What chance has the second man got
if the first man
call
s him a
liar before he even begins talking?”
“Right!” I cried exultantly. “One
hundred per cent right. It?s not fair. The first
man has
poisoned the well
before anybody could drink from it. He has
hamstrung his opponent
before he could
even start ... Polly
, I?m proud of
you.”
“Pshaws,” she
murmured, blushing with pleasure.
“You see, my dear, these things aren?t
so hard. All you have to do is concentrate.
Think
—
examine
—evaluate. Come now, let?s review everything we
have learned.”
“Fire away,”
she said with a
n airy wave of her
hand.
Heartened by the
knowledge that Polly was not altogether a cretin,
I began a long,
patient review of all I
had told her. Over and over and over again I cited
instances, pointed
out flaws, kept
hammering away without letup. It was like digging
a tunnel. At first,
everything was
work, sweat, and darkness. I had no idea when I
would reach the light, or
even if I
would. But I persisted. I pounded and clawed and
scraped, and finally I was
rewarded. I
saw a chink of light. And then the chink got
bigger and the sun came pouring
in and
all was bright.
Five
grueling nights with this took, but it was worth
it. I had made a logician out of
Polly;
I had taught her to think. My job was done. She
was worthy of me, at last. She was
a
fit wife for me, a proper hostess for my many
mansions, a suitable mother for my
well-heeled children.
It must not be thought that I was
without love for this girl. Quite the contrary.
Just as
Pygmalion loved the perfect
woman he had fashioned, so I loved mine. I decided
to
acquaint her with my feelings at our
very next meeting. The time had come to change our
relationship from academic to
romantic.
“Polly,” I said
when next we sat beneath our oak, “tonight we will
not discuss
fallacies.”
“Aw, gee,” she said,
disappointe
d.
“My
dear,” I said, favoring her with a smile, “we have
now spent five evenings
together. We
have gotten along splendidly. It is clear that we
are well matched.”
“Hasty
Generalization,” said Polly brightly.
“I beg your pardon,” said I.
“Hasty Generalization,” she repeated.
“How can you say that we are well matched on
the basis of only five
dates?”
I chuckled with
amusement. The dear child had learned her lessons
well. “My dear,” I
said, patting her
hand in a tolerant manner, “five dates is plenty.
After all, you don?t have to
eat a
whole cake to know that it?s good.”
“False Analogy,” said Polly promptly.
“I?m not a cake. I?m a girl.”
I chuckled with somewhat less
amusement. The dear child had learned her lessons
perhaps too well. I decided to change
tactics. Obviously the best approach was a simple,
strong, direct declaration of love. I
paused for a moment while my massive brain chose
the
proper word. Then I
began:
“Polly, I love you.
You are the whole world to me, the moon and the
stars and the
constellations of outer
space. Please, my darling, say that you will go
steady with me, for if
you will not,
life will be meaningless. I will languish. I will
refuse my meals. I will wander
the face
of the earth, a shambling, hollow-
eyed
hulk.”
There, I thought,
folding my arms, that ought to do it.
“Ad Misericordiam,” said
Polly.
I ground my teeth. I
was not Pygmalion; I was Frankenstein, and my
monster had me
by the throat.
Frantically I fought back the tide of panic
surging through me; at all costs I
had
to keep cool.
“Well, Polly,”
I said, forcing a smile, “you certainly have
learned your fallacies.”
“You?re darn right,” she said with a
vigorous nod.
“And who
taught them to you, Polly?”
“You did.”
“That?s right. So you do owe me
something, don?t you, my dear? If I hadn?t come
along you never would have learned
about fallacies.”
“Hypothesis Contrary to Fact,” she said
instantly.
I dashed
perspiration from my brow. “Polly,” I croaked,
“you mustn?t take all these
things so
literally. I mean this is just classroom stuff.
You know that the things you learn in
school don?t have anything to do with
life.”
“Dicto Simpliciter,”
she said, wagging her finger at me
playfully.
That did it. I
leaped to my feet, bellowing like a bull. “Will
you or will you not go ste
ady
with me?”
“I will
not,” she replied.
“Why
not?” I demanded.
“Because
this afternoon I promised Petey Bellows that I
would go steady with him.”
I
reeled back, overcome with the infamy of it. After
he promised, after he made a deal,
after he shook my han
d! “The
rat!” I shrieked, kicking up great chunks of turf.
“You can?t go
with him, Polly. He?s a
liar. He?s a cheat. He?s a rat.”
“Poisoning the Well ,” said Polly, “and
stop shouting. I think shouting must be a fallacy
too.”
With an
immense effort of wil
l, I modulated my
voice. “All right,” I said. “You?re a
logician. Let?s look at this thing
logically. How could you choose Petey Bellows over
me?
Look at me
—
a
brilliant student, a tremendous intellectual, a
man with an assured future.
Look at
Petey
—
a knoth
ead,
a jitterbug, a guy who?ll never know where his
next meal is
coming from. Can you give
me one logical reason why you should go steady
with Petey
Bellows?”
“I certainly can,” declared Polly.
“He?s got a raccoon coat.”
查
尔斯.兰姆是一个世所罕见的性情欢快、富有进取心的人,他那笔下的散文《古瓷器》和
《梦中的孩子》
无拘无束、自由奔放。实在令人难忘。下面这篇文章比兰姆的作品更加自
由
奔放。实际上,用
“
自由奔放
”
的字眼来形容这篇文章并不十分确切,或许用
“
柔软
”
、
“
轻松
”
或
“
轻软而富有弹性
”
更为恰如其分。
p>
尽管很难说清这篇文章是属于哪一类,
但可以肯定它是一篇散文小品文。
它提出了论点。
引用了许多例证,并得出了结论。卡菜尔能写得
更好吗
?
罗斯金呢
?
p>
这篇文章意在论证逻辑学非但不枯燥乏味而且活泼、
清新、
富于关感和激情,
并给人以
启迪。诸位不妨一读
。
——
作者注
我这个人头脑冷静,逻辑思维能力
强。敏锐、慎重、聪慧、深刻、机智一一这些就是我
的特点。我的大脑像发电机一样发达
,孳化学家的天平一样精确,
像手术刀一样锋利。
一一
你知道吗
?
我才十八岁呀。
年纪这么轻而智力又如此非凡的人并不常有。
就拿在明尼苏达大学跟我同住一个房间的<
/p>
皮蒂
·
伯奇来说吧,他跟我年龄相哆
p>
?
经历一样,可他笨得像头驴。小伙子长得年轻漂亮,可
惜脑子里却空空如也。他易于激动,
情绪反复无常,容易受别人的影响。最
糟的是他爱赶时
髦。我认为,赶时髦就是最缺乏理智的表现。
见
到一
q9
种新鲜的东西就跟着学,<
/p>
以为别人
都在那么干,自己也就卷进去傻干
——
这在我看来,简直愚蠢至极,但皮蒂却不以为然。
一天下
午我看见皮蒂躺在床上,
脸上显露出一种痛苦不堪的表情,
我立
刻断定他是得了
阑尾炎。
“
别动,
p>
”
我说,
“
别吃泻
药,我就请医生来。
”
“
浣熊,
”
他咕哝着说。
“
p>
浣熊
?”
我停下来问道。
< br>
“
我要一件浣熊皮大衣,
”
他痛苦地
哭叫着。
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
上一篇:慎小嶷雅思写作36个句型
下一篇:雅思写作常用写作词汇