The discussion centers on the definition and role of a critic, emphasizing that criticism should encompass more than mere fault-finding. The author asserts that a critic must excel in writing, serve as a teacher, and engage in broader thinking about society and philosophy. Participants debate the qualities deemed essential for effective critique, with a focus on whether "matter-of-fact attitude" was mentioned as necessary. The conversation reveals confusion over the phrasing of a question regarding which qualities were not included in the author's description of a critic's duties. Ultimately, there is contention over the interpretation of "original thinking" and its relevance to critique, with some arguing that a critic should not rely solely on original ideas but rather on established knowledge and insights. The dialogue highlights differing views on the expectations of critics and the nature of critical analysis.
