tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post6987515114399861004..comments2024-01-06T10:36:04.084-05:00Comments on A Commonplace Blog: Absence of MindD. G. Myershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10659136455045567825noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-63399695944849939392010-08-29T00:45:21.409-04:002010-08-29T00:45:21.409-04:00I enjoyed your thoughts on Robinson's essays a...I enjoyed your thoughts on Robinson's essays and the exchange of opinions in the comments very much. I've thoroughly enjoyed everything she's written, although I found The Death of Adam heavier going than her fiction. I will now read Absence of Mind with a clearer idea of what she's writing about. Thank you.Sandrahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06265301061583417768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-65259466128604510642010-08-23T23:37:03.745-04:002010-08-23T23:37:03.745-04:00Dear DGM:
On your recommendation, I read Robinson ...Dear DGM:<br />On your recommendation, I read Robinson (on my Kindle)and will teach its argument in my contemporary literature and culture class. I think that is an excellent introduction to contemporaneity. <br />PS: I hope you and family are settling in.Paul M. Hedeennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-34340905988751207942010-08-16T04:20:23.862-04:002010-08-16T04:20:23.862-04:00I just want to say thank you for this blog. It is ...I just want to say thank you for this blog. It is a wonderful resource on literature, generally. While I don't agree with your politics, necessarily, they aren't much on display here, as you don't seem to be a dogmatic culture warrior. What's interesting to me is that even though you profess to be conservative, your outlook on criticism is remarkably liberal. You seem to have come to the conclusion that there is no objective standard by which to judge, rather you take each work for what it is.Tim Chambershttp://bonalibro.usnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-29552023367946607122010-07-23T21:44:55.617-04:002010-07-23T21:44:55.617-04:00Dawkins argument and what we currently know about ...Dawkins argument and what we currently know about the world to conclude that the possibility of god's existence is vanishingly slim.<br /><br />And what do we really know about the world anyway? More importantly, how can Dawkins know that he is not a magical being who has been robbed of the consciousness of that fact by The Devil, with God's permission? As Job, he is afflicted by forces beyond his comprehension, in Dawkins' case, by the need to evangelize that God isn't there. If Dawkins was so rational, he would stop evangelizing because he'd know that science is fundamentally right and therefore undeniable. And yet there is a peculiar sense of mad urgency in his work.A.J.http://amemorytheater.blogspot.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-62084718545167259542010-07-20T16:04:30.514-04:002010-07-20T16:04:30.514-04:00@ Kevin
I understand what you are saying. What up...@ Kevin<br /><br />I understand what you are saying. What upsets me about Dawkins is his contempt for faith in anything while his argument relies on a conclusion requires just such a leap as the belief in god. <br /><br />While for the most part i agree with his conclusion about the non-existence of a god. I understand that i have as little proof for it as any christian, muslim, jew etc. outside of my own conscience and personal scientific conviction.Kylenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-15915332541618571682010-07-19T17:55:10.455-04:002010-07-19T17:55:10.455-04:00Yes, I saw her on the Daily Show, and I think Jon ...Yes, I saw her on the Daily Show, and I think Jon Stewart found her so serious and impressive that he was less silly as an interviewer than usual. (I love his silliness because there's a moral ground under it, but in this case, I think he was right.)<br /><br />My characters struggle with faith,too. It is a struggle worthy of respect.Shelleyhttp://dustbowlpoetry.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-73015813770193531812010-07-18T15:20:34.384-04:002010-07-18T15:20:34.384-04:00Hi Professor Myers, hope you're doing well. Wh...Hi Professor Myers, hope you're doing well. When you have a moment, can you recommend what you think are F. Prose's 3-5 best books? I presume Blue Angel is among them and have been looking for that title at used bookstores but haven't stumbled upon it just yet. Thank you. Best regards, Kevin, jkneilson@yahoo.comKevinhttp://interpolations.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-1791490222562704002010-07-15T19:10:52.884-04:002010-07-15T19:10:52.884-04:00Excellent review -- you do a good job picking out ...Excellent review -- you do a good job picking out the most lucid parts of her arguments. I was disappointed in her book, in that I thought it was too densely reasoned. It seemed written for an academic audience (makes sense, considering the venue in which the essays were delivered), but I would rather have seen her make the same arguments in more straightforward language for a general audience. It's a good defense of the humanities and refutation of parascientific arrogance, however.Tom Beshearnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-17484026269434244692010-07-15T11:58:34.144-04:002010-07-15T11:58:34.144-04:00This is really interesting--I doubt I'm going ...This is really interesting--I doubt I'm going to read Robinson's book (it sounds like it'd be too infuriating for me) but it's interesting to hear how an unabashed religious humanist (and brilliant writer) comes at these sorts of problems. It sounds like she doesn't know that these things are also recognized as problems by people who don't share her exact faith or interest, and who are coming at them from a different angle--i.e., that of posthumanism and systems theory. Ultimately, I think that's a better and safer solution, especially for people who don't share her faith.JMMhttp://niftyrictus.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-12631824281514056782010-07-14T23:24:59.406-04:002010-07-14T23:24:59.406-04:00A quick rejoinder to Kyle, if such a thing is perm...A quick rejoinder to Kyle, if such a thing is permitted. Dawkins does not use science to "prove" the non-existence of god, no more than he uses science to "prove" the non-existence of black pather mechanisms and thetan souls. Dawkins argument and what we currently know about the world to conclude that the possibility of god's existence is vanishingly slim.Kevinhttp://interpolations.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-23625100849959213952010-07-14T23:20:24.025-04:002010-07-14T23:20:24.025-04:00Thank you, professor Myers. I love Robinson's ...Thank you, professor Myers. I love Robinson's fiction and firmly believe that she's one of America's most notable writers, but it actually causes me a shudder of pain to hear her speak about matters of which she patently has little understanding. She's simply not entitled to argue about science and faith and subjectivity as if Kant had never existed, or as if McGinn or Searle, our modern-day Kant, doesn't offer a robust philosophical defense of ontological subjectivity, etc. Etc. Regards, KevinKevinhttp://interpolations.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-12022946176905686752010-07-10T00:45:20.144-04:002010-07-10T00:45:20.144-04:00I have not read Robinson's book but am now con...I have not read Robinson's book but am now considering picking it up.<br /><br />I know that as a scientific person myself nothing angers me more than people like Richard Dawkins using science as a proof on the absense of a god.<br /><br />Not believing in a god requires a similar amount of faith as believing in a god. If one were to start from a neutral standpoint and take a purely scientific route to an answer the problem would arise that the concept of god is something that is above the universal law, the laws that science relies upon, therefore in any physical or thought experiment there is no control element present because nothing can control god.<br /><br />I am interested to read her book, it seems like it is a continuation of the debate on the Copenhagen interpretation in physics (put in a purely philosophical realm), summed up in Einstein's and Bohr's "God does not play with dice" exchange.<br /><br />sorry for the somewhat science nerd comment.Kylenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-67700852782211794452010-07-09T21:12:46.126-04:002010-07-09T21:12:46.126-04:00I have not (yet) read her book, although I have re...I have not (yet) read her book, although I have read and enjoyed Housekeeping and Gilead and a couple of her essays in Harper's.<br /><br />And yet aren't the "assertive atheists" straw men, really? Surely the purview of religious sensibility hasn't waned over the past two centuries because of the likes of *them*?<br /><br />It seems to me that her arguments for humility and complex subjectivity are not only arguments against atheism, but also arguments *for* agnosticism (and certainly not arguments for religious conviction).<br /><br />In contrast to Dennett et al, Darwin and Nietzsche argued for the death of God with a certain wistfulness-they well knew what was being lost.Novalishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10501890494890617030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3458341.post-76572044259248840402010-07-09T18:00:18.735-04:002010-07-09T18:00:18.735-04:00Here is Marilynne Robinson interviewed yesterday b...Here is Marilynne Robinson interviewed yesterday by Jon Stewart on The Daily Show:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-july-8-2010/marilynne-robinson" rel="nofollow">http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-july-8-2010/marilynne-robinson</a>Dave Lullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01053227199985293516noreply@blogger.com