(urth) Academic commentary

[António Pedro Marques]

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.