Academic commentary

James Wynn · 01 Dec 2010, 22:26 · from 2010-December.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: crushtv at gmail.com (James Wynn)
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:26:24 -0600
Subject: (urth) Academic commentary
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTim+D2sh3vfCaG2hPJu6zmvQbWnZvfjKxOxfeJCt at mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim+D2sh3vfCaG2hPJu6zmvQbWnZvfjKxOxfeJCt at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF6CB90.6020506 at gmail.com>

>> >
>> James Wynn wrote-
>> >  Analyzing an argument by the supposed motives of the arguer can quickly
>> >  go off the rails.
> Andrew Mason-
> If I understand this discussion correctly, no one is proposing to
> analyse an argument by the supposed motives of the arguer.  What is
> happening is that people, having decided, by whatever methods are
> thought appropriate, that an argument is not a good one, are in
> addition speculating about what led the arguer to put it forward.

Ehh...this topic was not really discussed long or in depth before 
Wright's motives were opined.
Saying "people, having decided, by whatever methods are thought 
appropriate, that an argument is not a good one" (without paying 
critical attention to those methods) is the same as Lewis' definition of 
Bulverism:
"The modern method is to assume without discussion /that/ he is wrong 
and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by 
busily explaining how he became so silly."

>
> Dan'l -
> Spot on: my implied distrust of deconstructionism should show that I
> am very much in sympathy with Lewis's position as expressed in the
> deleted quote. Facts are facts, and the text at hand is what it is and
> not, for example, what the author may have intended it to be. But to
> suggest that we might legitimately discuss the work of, say, Fredric
> Jameson, without delving into Marxism is ludicrous.
>
> Again, I have not read Wright, and do not know whether he has an
> explicit ideological motivation. I'm arguing pure theory here, not
> "Wright's wrong."

Since you have been up-front that you haven't read Wright I think it 
would a drastic mis-reading to think you are arguing anything but pure 
theory.  But delving into Marxism is only useful for reading Jameson in 
the sense that understanding his arguments requires understanding the 
premises of Marxism. But I hardly think it is necessary to understand 
atheism in order to understand Wright's arguments.

u+16b9

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20101201/648e117d/attachment.htm>

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net