Let me try again to understand you then.
"Is it really that big a stretch." I can't know that beforehand.
"Think about Gatsby " Ok, I'm thinking about Gatsby now.
"we get Gatsby's story from Nick's point of view, right?" All right.
"Did Nick really know -everything- about Gatsby?" Why, no! I suppose not! Who ever know everything, even about only one thing ?
"Or did he just know what he heard and saw for himself, with some second hand knowledge thrown in?" Well, I think I follow but I object the following: Nick did not know anything. For Nick has not eyes to see, ears to hear and brains to think. In a word he has not the capacity to know, for Nick as you said your self, is not real. Scott-F is the real author of Nick's word. So that ultimately it seems to me that the only one who knows anything in Gatsby is Scott-F himself.
So if not, then yes it is a way too big stretch for me.
Would you not agree with me that to actually know something you need to be actual ?
Your Second point now:
Now K is like Plato, right ?
Ok, there is worse companionship than to be Plato's.
Still, I don't quite get how your comparison tells me what is the specific point of having A and B in a dialogue for K.
Can you be more specific ?
I would readily admit he has them have a dialogue, for after all B is sending letters to A I think I remember well here, but what is at stake in your opinion in their dialogue ?
Don't you think there is a slight difference too with the way Plato's dialogue are built. I am even less of an expert in Plato than in K but I think most often Socrates shows the weaknesses in the others' argumentations and helps them understand the weaknesses as weaknesses. Then he sometimes suggests another approach and let them lead this new approach to a satisfactory (or more satisfactory) conclusion.
Do you think this is what K is doing in Either/Or?
If not, what is he doing ? Or what's his point ?
Yahoo! for Good
Click here to donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]