Academic commentary

James Wynn · 01 Dec 2010, 22:52 · 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 16:52:26 -0600
Subject: (urth) Academic commentary
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTi=kxLCKdYcNVOmWyPYMUAVJc4JZU=ipyWK=6937 at mail.gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim+D2sh3vfCaG2hPJu6zmvQbWnZvfjKxOxfeJCt at mail.gmail.com>	<4CF6CB90.6020506 at gmail.com>
	<AANLkTi=kxLCKdYcNVOmWyPYMUAVJc4JZU=ipyWK=6937 at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF6D1AA.9070507 at gmail.com>

>> James Wynn - 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.
> Dan'l -
> Marxism does not only inform Jameson's arguments; it constrains that
> conclusions he is able to reach, and to read him usefully (and
> especially to read him against other, non-Marxist critics discussing
> the same works) requires understanding not only the arguments but the
> constraints. He is (okay: _seems_) incapable of constructing an
> argument or reaching a conclusion which is inconsistent with Marxism.
>
> Is it possible that such a constraint operates in Wright's case?

But once you have decided to discuss Jameson's motives for his 
conclusions, haven't you changed the subject from analyzing his 
arguments to detailing his biography or excoriating the dangers of 
fundamentalist Marxism? The purpose of such analysis would be "How did 
Jameson come to his wonderful/awful arguments?" or "Why are Jameson's 
conclusions so horribly stunted?"

If you are discussing Jameson's or Wright's arguments then it is as 
irrelevant why they did not offer some other argument as it is to 
speculate why St. Paul did not preach Confucianism.

u+16b9

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