Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Du Bos grounds vraisemblance in historical and cultural specificity, not in abstract metaphysical permissibility.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Some narrative patterns (cause preceding effect, character motivations matching actions) appear consistently plausible across vastly different cultures and periods.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
If vraisemblance were purely historical-cultural, critics couldn't meaningfully evaluate works from unfamiliar periods or defend non-contemporary literature.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Du Bos risks collapsing vraisemblance into mere convention or fashion, losing critical standards for distinguishing well-crafted from poorly-crafted narratives.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Literary plausibility varies across periods: what seemed vraisemblable in 17th-century France differs from modern expectations, requiring historical context.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Readers evaluate narrative likelihood through culturally-specific conventions, norms, and knowledge, not universal logical principles.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Du Bos's approach explains why identical plots succeed in one era but fail in another—historical particularity, not abstract possibility, determines acceptance.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.