<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTim+D2sh3vfCaG2hPJu6zmvQbWnZvfjKxOxfeJCt@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<pre wrap=""><span class="moz-txt-citetags">></span>
James Wynn wrote-
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>Analyzing an argument by the supposed motives of the arguer can quickly
<span class="moz-txt-citetags">> </span>go off the rails.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Andrew Mason-
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.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ehh...this topic was not really discussed long or in depth before
Wright's motives were opined. <br>
Saying "people, having decided, by whatever methods are thought
appropriate, that an argument is not a good one" (without paying
critical attention to those methods) is the same as Lewis'
definition of Bulverism:<br>
"The modern method is to assume without discussion <i>that</i> he
is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real
issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly."<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTinMpyFJDgMPQiqMTVaYUDNNqD2_7w7jgod5XPcj@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<pre wrap="">Dan'l -
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."</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
u+16b9<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>