reader response to post on the pathetic fallacy

Ronald writes:

“I didn’t think Ruskin’s idea about (em)pathetic fallacy was a complaint about literature. I think he was highlighting it as an interesting technique often present. I’ve always understood him as recognizing metaphor as actually central to creative writing. It’s a similar notion to Lakoff’s ideas in cognitive linguistics. Ruskin points out some variations on metaphor that he has noticed, and discusses their aesthetic effect. I was surprised that you seemed unfamiliar with the term, though.

In philosophy (I thought), the pathetic fallacy is something to be aware of, so as to notice it in arguments and remove. Sort of a twisty subclass of the reification fallacy.”

As for Ruskin, I don’t know how he’s been received. I was just referring to the way “pathetic fallacy” is being used in a number of blog posts I came across.

As for the second, shorter paragraph, I simply don’t concede that it’s a “fallacy” to eliminate the absolute distinction between human and non-human. To call this a fallacy is merely to assert a commonplace dualism drawn from the “folk” experience of modernity. You’d better have pretty good evidence for your own position before you call the opposing position a fallacy. Otherwise, a better term for it would be simply “the opposing position.”