(urth) Academic commentary

[James Wynn]

>> 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