[lit-ideas] Re: Marxism and Political Correctness
- From: Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2012 00:10:32 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 3/1/2012 1:44:06 A.M. UTC-02, rpaul@xxxxxxxx writes:
JL:
"Whatever "good art" is, it is not achieved by being or teaching that
which is politically correct. Someone might argue that being Politically
Correct
in belief (?) trumps "good art.”
JL says some things about ‘morals’ and about Philippa Foot’s thought
as it might pertain to them. I’ll try to comment on them ...
---
Matter of fact, that passage about trumping was (c) L. Helm. I failed to
understand the complex gist of Helm's post citing from Wilson.
Wilson was saying that no (new) Marxist can tell us what "good" literature
is. (Apparently, he thought palaeo-Marxists like Marx COULD). I got stuck
with 'good' unnecessarily, since Wilson is no philosopher.
Apparently, Wilson is concerned with Marxist-oriented literature, as per
Lenin's regime. And Wilson is suggesting that that literature, rather than
'good', is rather 'bad'.
Helm tells me that Wilson was NOT possibly influenced by Richards.
I got stuck with 'good', which I think IS the adjective used, unseriously,
by Wilson.
This got me into Philippa Foot, and her sketch of a book, "The grammar of
goodness". But the analytical approach was unnecessary when dealing with
Wilson's rather casual commentary? And so on.
I also failed to address, as L. Helm points out, the issue of "PC", which I
tend to minimise. To me, "PC" pertains to the choice or rejection of this
or that familiar locution in speech, rather than grand theses about
propaganda and literature -- but I may be wrong!
Cheers,
Speranza
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
Other related posts:
