(urth) Urth Digest, Vol 76, Issue 8

[Ryan Dunn]

On Dec 2, 2010, at 11:31 AM, Nick Lee wrote:

> After reading Attending Daedalus, I thought Wright was "eschewing the traditional religious interpretation" of the Sun books because of his physicalist worldview (though I do not know his worldview and he never announces it to my knowledge). I'm a physicalist myself. If you had read Wright's book you would see that he criticizes the religious readings of Wolfe on the basis that those readers are religious.


I've read most of the essays in Attending Daedalus, and yes, he can criticize whatever he wants, based on whatever he wants, and we as readers can agree with him, disagree with him, or agree with parts of what he criticizes and not others.

I was not getting into the glass houses side of the argument, just the asterisks part of it. And yes, from what I've read through this chain, several people seem to be of the mind that the motivations of a critic or a peer in an argument should be considered as criteria for the validity of their argument. Not even for the argument itself, but whether that person is even qualified to talk about it.

It is possible I have misread. Some of these posts do tend to read like legalese while others are written for laymen to digest.

:)

...ryan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20101202/80f6ed08/attachment-0002.htm>