(urth) Academic commentary

[Dan'l Danehy-Oakes]

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:12 PM, Andrew Mason
<andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Analyzing an argument by the supposed motives of the arguer can quickly
>> go off the rails.
>
> 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.

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."

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes