(urth) Academic commentary

[Ryan Dunn]

On Dec 2, 2010, at 9:50 AM, Andrew Mason <andrew.mason53 at googlemail.com> wrote:

>> It is not legitimate.  It is a logical fallacy to judge the validity
>> of an argument by referring to the motivations of the person who makes
>> the argument.
> 
> That is a fallacy, without question. However, I remain unconvinced
> that anyone here is doing it. If someone were to argue 'Wright has
> such and such motives; therefore he is wrong', that would be
> fallacious. But what I think people are actually saying is 'Wright is
> wrong' (for reasons that have been extensively discussed over a period
> of years - they don't convince everyone, but they exist). 'Now, how
> can we explain his coming to this wrong conclusion?' At this point
> motives become relevant.

The least heartening thing about this whole conversation is that Wright has been deemed wrong or (worse) incapable of comprehending certain spiritual motivations of Wolfe's text strictly because he is reading it from an atheist's perspective.

Even if it happens to influence his logic and/or opinions about the text, should being an atheist preclude him from deducing themes from a story just because they happen to be predicated on God or gods? That's like saying I am not allowed to deem my tire has gone flat because I am not a mechanic. Nevermind the loud shot I heard, or the fact that my car now drives funny, or the clearly torn up, airless piece of rubber hanging from my tire rim.

My feeling is that the motives behind a persons argument are distantly secondary to the opinion itself. Are we saying an atheist finds nothing of worth in the musings of a Christian? Or that an atheist is incapable of teaching a fallen Christian about faith? Are we saying there is absolutely nothing alluring about socialism to a conservative? Is Wolfe himself not a Catholic who converted in his later life?

Where does it end? I think it is shameful to think a critic should have an asterisks next to his/her name in order to give those who happen to disagree with their criticisms a way out. "Oh, look, he's an atheist. See? How could he possibly understand the religious underpinnings of Wolfe's work?"

I say all of this as a pantheist who was raised Catholic, in case anyone needed asterisks fodder for me.

And to the question of motivation as to why Sarah Palin or Bill Clinton or Bill O'Reilly, or Barack Obama, or George W. Bush would write an autobiography, I would suspect that is perhaps the easiest question yet.

As human beings, all we are is an amalgam of beliefs and codes formed and shaped by others with an equally complex set of beliefs and codes. Everything has an asterisks, everything is motivated by something. The return on investment in going down that habit hole is better served in a court of law, just about the only place where judging thy neighbor is, well, just.

...ryan