(urth) Academic commentary

[Dan'l Danehy-Oakes]

On Wed, Dec 1, 2010 at 2:26 PM, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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.

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?

-- 
Dan'l Danehy-Oakes