Academic commentary

António Pedro Marques · 01 Dec 2010, 23:12 · 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: entonio at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?QW50w7NuaW8gUGVkcm8gTWFycXVlcw==?=)
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 23:12:34 +0000
Subject: (urth) Academic commentary
In-Reply-To: <4CF6D1AA.9070507 at gmail.com>
References: <AANLkTim+D2sh3vfCaG2hPJu6zmvQbWnZvfjKxOxfeJCt at mail.gmail.com>	<4CF6CB90.6020506 at gmail.com>	<AANLkTi=kxLCKdYcNVOmWyPYMUAVJc4JZU=ipyWK=6937 at mail.gmail.com>
	<4CF6D1AA.9070507 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4CF6D662.1050002 at gmail.com>

James Wynn wrote (01-12-2010 22:52):
>
>>> 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.

But that is not the issue. The issue, as originally stated, is that at a 
certain point some authors make some conclusions that don't follow from 
their premises, or fail to make those that do. Speculating why that happens 
is important because it may always be that their conclusions do match the 
premises after all - but one has to explain why/how -, or the discrepancy is 
real and only finding a cause for it may lay the matter provisorily at rest.

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