----- Original Message ----- From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu>
> Any artifact, once completed, is simply itself. It can be stimulating to
> thought to talk about what it does not do or does not 'contain,' and
> perhaps can enhance perception of the artifact, but one then is also
> talking about something that does not exist, the strictly hypothetical
> artifact that is in some mystic way both the "same" as the one in front
> of us and also a different 'thing.'
In some cases, criticism leads to the alteration of existent artifacts (my friend doesn't like my sculpture, so I resculpt it). More often, it leads to the creation of better (or at least different) artifacts in the future (my friend didn't like my last sculpture, so I'll try to create one more to her liking now).
How this works when the artifact is meant to persuade by engaging reason ought to be obvious, but I'll sketch the process anyway. My interlocutor points out a series of purportedly significant gaps and fallacies in my argument. If I agree with him, I either try to fill in the gaps and correct the fallacies, or abandon the argument.
-- Luke