I want to paint a picture. A painful, painful picture. I want you to picture this kid as clearly as I saw him. He looked like Fred Savage's best friend from the Wonder Years. Remember that dumb show? So... picture that kid, except in his teenage years, wearing an AFI shirt, a black hat, and having strands of black hair coming out of his hat and resting on the left side of his face. He was sitting with his very normal, upper middle class parents at Red Lobster.
The story goes like this. My mother-in-law flies in from Ohio and, wanting to see not just my wife but her other daughter, she wanted us all to go to Red Lobster for dinner because that's where the other daughter (Trish, for all of you who know her) worked. My mother-in-law did ask me if it was okay for us to dine there, understanding how I feel about eating meat, which was very considerate of her. Since I am not a Nazi about it, I said that was fine and if nothing else, I can always order a bunch of sides of vegetables.
As we're in the lobby, waiting to be seated, I see the "Tank of Doom." As a side note, for those of you who choose not to think about it, I plead with you to think about it. (We're getting to the emo kid, I swear!) First of all, the lobsters in that tank are not fed. They are starved because, and only because, it is not cost effecient to feed them. I did not know this until the visit that inspired this story. So, maybe it's a good thing that they await their death to end their suffering... BUT WAIT. Let's think about this. The more starved an organism becomes, the less vigorous it is. It loses weight. It becomes, in seafood terms, bad. Nobody picks the motionless lobster resting in the corner. See, friends, this is what we call torture. Sounds fun! When a lobster is finally selected, it is then dumped into a large pot of boiling water. Sounds funner. And, yes, I understand funner is not a word. SO! God put animals here for us to use in such a way that we starve them and then boil them alive, only to eat them afterwards. No, I'm not a Christian.
By the way, some lobsters scream when they are tossed into the pot. And we thought aquatic animals couldn't express pain. PSH! How stupid are we? Now for the point of all this and how this is about an actual emo kid and not just lobsters.
This dumb looking kid, this kid that I wanted to slap around, walks into the lobby with his fat ass dad to survey the "Tank of Doom." I want you to remember what he looks like. Picture him pinching his pointy chin between his thumb and index finger. I thought to myself, "You've gotta be kidding me! Since when are emo kids lobster connoisseurs?"
After we sit down to our table, I realize that I'm facing this douche bag. His victim is brought out to his table and he eagerly breaks the carcass apart and digs out the meat. He breaks off each tiny leg and sucks everything out of them, letting the fatty juices accumulate on his lips like lip gloss. He sits with his parents with money and enjoys his status in society while rebelling against society at the same time. Life is pain, right?... stupid shit bag.
P.S. Don't give Red Lobster your business. They torture animals that feel pain just like us. Lucky for me, I didn't have to pay them shit, I just ate their dinner rolls for free!... HA...bitchmongers.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
The Cosmological Argument versus the Argument from Evil
When it comes to the question of God's existence, it is hard to find an individual who holds no opinion on the subject. Many theistic arguments have unfolded in defense of the question of God's existence, such as the cosmological argument. Atheistic arguments such as the argument from evil have become widely accepted as well. Many thinkers understand these arguments for their validity. An interesting question arises when analyzing both arguments. Can defenders of both sides agree on what the nature of this so-called God is? For instance, the cosmological argument gives no indication that God is omnipotent, omniscient, nor omni-benevolent. It simply defines God as a necessary being – a being in which no explanation is necessary. The argument from evil on the other hand assumes that if God did exist, we should naturally assume that his nature would entail ultimate knowledge, power, and good. At face value, it seems that the atheist requires a closer understanding of the nature of God than the cosmological theist. Besides the issue of the nature of God, I assert that the argument from evil is a more sufficient argument in regard to the question of God's existence.
The cosmological argument is as follows: there must be a reason for the existence of the cosmos and that reason can only be the resulting actions of a necessary being. Therefore, a necessary being, or God, exists. This argument form is modus tollens, which makes it valid by holding that the premises are true. The cosmos does exist. There is definitely a reason for its existence simply for the fact that it is here. Something had to cause its existence. Does that mean that a necessary being exists? Defenders of this argument have analyzed the side of physics and astronomy promoting the Big Bang theory. Many defenders of the Big Bang theory will say that the origin of the cosmos is better explained by the efforts of science before it is explained by the idea of a necessary being. However, one must ask how the Big Bang happened. This is where the cosmological theist triumphs because to insinuate that something caused the Big Bang is self-refuting. If nothing in the cosmos existed before the Big Bang then there was no existing substance to set the ball rolling. It is logical to say that for something to come of nothing is impossible. The principle of sufficient reason states that everything happens for a reason. Therefore, the Big Bang theory, as we understand it, fails. The cosmological argument, however, is not exempt from scrutiny. As indicated earlier, the argument gives no indication of this God's nature. If God's nature only entails the will to create, then what is the reason for this creation? If we are created to live and die for no reason other than, perhaps, 'God got bored one day,' then we are only to infer from the argument that there is no reason to live because there's no valuable reason for our existence. Bertrand Russell raises another objection to the argument by insisting that the premise regarding the cosmos being created for a reason is unnecessary. He argues that the universe exists because it exists. Why should we demand a reason for its existence? Ultimately, I believe the cosmological argument to be unsound. The argument concludes that God does, without a doubt, exist. The problem with that is we have only to rely on the idea that the universe is a design created by will. The cosmos holds so many undiscovered mysteries that the human mind cannot wrap around. So, how can the creator be explained when the creation still needs explaining?
As far as the problem of evil, we separate the problem into two forms: the evidential problem of evil and the logical problem of evil. The argument relies on four premises regarding the nature of God and the nature of our world. We must assume that if God exists he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent. We must also assume that evil exists. If the classical theist is correct, all four of these premises are agreed upon by the theist and the atheist alike. The atheist uses these premises to discredit the existence of God by stating that for God to be all knowing, powerful, and good contradicts the fact that evil exists. In other words, how can God exist if bad things happen or vice versa? The validity of this argument is universal when debated with followers of any religion. If one is to deny the existence of evil, a new definition must arise. But to define evil as something other than bad things happening in the world would require almost impossible twists. A person would be hard up to deny that a child being raped would easily be deemed evil. An even trickier pothole to dodge would be to explain why God would create humans who do these things. Either God is omni-benevolent or not. Or, one could ponder why God would not put a stop to evil in the first place. Either God is omnipotent or not. Thus, we're left with the question of why God would create the world when he knew that his creation would "run amok," so to speak. Either he's omniscient or not. So, the classical theist is trapped in premises that he/she has already agreed upon. There are two explanations for how God could co-exist with the contradiction previously presented. One is called the free-will defense. It simply implies that God cannot have complete control over his creation because he has granted them free will. One way to look at it this: I have complete dominion over my eight year old. I dictate the way he is brought up and what his privileges are. If I allow him to go to his friend's house and instruct him to be good, he ultimately has the choice of following my instructions or not. I have no control over how he will act around his friend. Another defense for classical theism is the establishment of theodicies. A theodicy is an attempt to establish certain evils as necessary. One of these, for instance, is called the Big-Plan theodicy. Basically, God has this huge plan that is all good. In order for the plan to run its course, certain bad things have to happen along the way. Another popular theodicy is the Contrast Theodicy, which states that bad things have to happen so that we understand the contrast between good and bad. If bad things didn't happen, we wouldn't recognize the good. Though the free-will defense and the idea of theodicies holds its validity among many, they still face the problem of the argument from evil. Sure, one can argue that God granted humans free will. Reverting back to the dead horse that's been beaten over and over, we will look at the situation of the rape of a child. Sure, the perpetrator has the free will to terrorize and violate this innocent human but does the victim have the freedom to choose his/her fate? Of course a child is unable to avoid becoming a victim when confronted by a much bigger, stronger aggressor. So, the free-will defense faces a huge problem. If one believes God is all-powerful, knowing, and good, then free will should only extend so far. A good, powerful God should not let a child become an unnecessary victim. This brings us to the fallacy of theodicies. Why and how does an evil become necessary? Is it necessary for a child to become a victim just so the average Joe Blow can see it on the news and be able to recognize good things? There is no logic in theodicies. It brings us back to the problem of evil: if God is all-powerful, knowing, and good then evil should not exist or God is not worthy of worship. If God is not worthy of worship, religious devotion becomes an ugly, grotesque practice.
I hold that the objections to the cosmological argument far outweigh the objections to the evidential problem of evil and the logical problem of evil. I feel that the argument from evil relies only on logic whereas the cosmological argument relies on mere assertion that existence of humanity has a definitive purpose. Especially when there is no clear explanation of what that purpose is. The idea of a necessary being holds merit, however that necessary being has no identifiable purpose, either. The atheist and the agnostic have one thing in common in regard to the nature of "God." The atheist says that if there were a God, we would have no clear indication of his nature and will just as the agnostic says that if there is a God, we have no clear indication of his nature and will. The theist, however, will normally have trouble abandoning the idea that God is anything other than omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent which brings me to the fallacy and irresponsibility of blind faith and my ultimate conclusion of why the argument from evil is more persuasive.
Though I may only analyze the theist versus the atheist, I must give my argument from an agnostic perspective. It's much like forcing yourself to be identified only by either the Republican party or the Democratic party when in reality you hold opinions as well as reject opinions of both parties. Many would deem agnosticism as "fence riding." I believe this is an unfair assumption. My basic argument is that I have no reason to believe in God's existence but I have every reason to believe in the possibility that I'm wrong. The universe is too complicated for me to state any definitive truth about what may or may not be beyond its limits. This fact, however, does not deem the debate between theism and atheism unnecessary. These logical possibilities are important aspects of our culture and how we practice the art of philosophy. The fundamental value I hold is that whether one's faith lies in science or religion, a fair analysis must be made for every possibility. Blind faith is irresponsible because it closes one's mind to values that lie beyond the status quo. In that sense, agnosticism is a sound belief system. To force me to decide only between the cosmological argument and the argument from evil, I will have to conclude that the argument from evil is sounder based on the fallacy of its opposition. However, on a whole, agnosticism is the soundest position due to the fact that intricate possibilities permeate throughout the history of human imagination.
The cosmological argument is as follows: there must be a reason for the existence of the cosmos and that reason can only be the resulting actions of a necessary being. Therefore, a necessary being, or God, exists. This argument form is modus tollens, which makes it valid by holding that the premises are true. The cosmos does exist. There is definitely a reason for its existence simply for the fact that it is here. Something had to cause its existence. Does that mean that a necessary being exists? Defenders of this argument have analyzed the side of physics and astronomy promoting the Big Bang theory. Many defenders of the Big Bang theory will say that the origin of the cosmos is better explained by the efforts of science before it is explained by the idea of a necessary being. However, one must ask how the Big Bang happened. This is where the cosmological theist triumphs because to insinuate that something caused the Big Bang is self-refuting. If nothing in the cosmos existed before the Big Bang then there was no existing substance to set the ball rolling. It is logical to say that for something to come of nothing is impossible. The principle of sufficient reason states that everything happens for a reason. Therefore, the Big Bang theory, as we understand it, fails. The cosmological argument, however, is not exempt from scrutiny. As indicated earlier, the argument gives no indication of this God's nature. If God's nature only entails the will to create, then what is the reason for this creation? If we are created to live and die for no reason other than, perhaps, 'God got bored one day,' then we are only to infer from the argument that there is no reason to live because there's no valuable reason for our existence. Bertrand Russell raises another objection to the argument by insisting that the premise regarding the cosmos being created for a reason is unnecessary. He argues that the universe exists because it exists. Why should we demand a reason for its existence? Ultimately, I believe the cosmological argument to be unsound. The argument concludes that God does, without a doubt, exist. The problem with that is we have only to rely on the idea that the universe is a design created by will. The cosmos holds so many undiscovered mysteries that the human mind cannot wrap around. So, how can the creator be explained when the creation still needs explaining?
As far as the problem of evil, we separate the problem into two forms: the evidential problem of evil and the logical problem of evil. The argument relies on four premises regarding the nature of God and the nature of our world. We must assume that if God exists he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omni-benevolent. We must also assume that evil exists. If the classical theist is correct, all four of these premises are agreed upon by the theist and the atheist alike. The atheist uses these premises to discredit the existence of God by stating that for God to be all knowing, powerful, and good contradicts the fact that evil exists. In other words, how can God exist if bad things happen or vice versa? The validity of this argument is universal when debated with followers of any religion. If one is to deny the existence of evil, a new definition must arise. But to define evil as something other than bad things happening in the world would require almost impossible twists. A person would be hard up to deny that a child being raped would easily be deemed evil. An even trickier pothole to dodge would be to explain why God would create humans who do these things. Either God is omni-benevolent or not. Or, one could ponder why God would not put a stop to evil in the first place. Either God is omnipotent or not. Thus, we're left with the question of why God would create the world when he knew that his creation would "run amok," so to speak. Either he's omniscient or not. So, the classical theist is trapped in premises that he/she has already agreed upon. There are two explanations for how God could co-exist with the contradiction previously presented. One is called the free-will defense. It simply implies that God cannot have complete control over his creation because he has granted them free will. One way to look at it this: I have complete dominion over my eight year old. I dictate the way he is brought up and what his privileges are. If I allow him to go to his friend's house and instruct him to be good, he ultimately has the choice of following my instructions or not. I have no control over how he will act around his friend. Another defense for classical theism is the establishment of theodicies. A theodicy is an attempt to establish certain evils as necessary. One of these, for instance, is called the Big-Plan theodicy. Basically, God has this huge plan that is all good. In order for the plan to run its course, certain bad things have to happen along the way. Another popular theodicy is the Contrast Theodicy, which states that bad things have to happen so that we understand the contrast between good and bad. If bad things didn't happen, we wouldn't recognize the good. Though the free-will defense and the idea of theodicies holds its validity among many, they still face the problem of the argument from evil. Sure, one can argue that God granted humans free will. Reverting back to the dead horse that's been beaten over and over, we will look at the situation of the rape of a child. Sure, the perpetrator has the free will to terrorize and violate this innocent human but does the victim have the freedom to choose his/her fate? Of course a child is unable to avoid becoming a victim when confronted by a much bigger, stronger aggressor. So, the free-will defense faces a huge problem. If one believes God is all-powerful, knowing, and good, then free will should only extend so far. A good, powerful God should not let a child become an unnecessary victim. This brings us to the fallacy of theodicies. Why and how does an evil become necessary? Is it necessary for a child to become a victim just so the average Joe Blow can see it on the news and be able to recognize good things? There is no logic in theodicies. It brings us back to the problem of evil: if God is all-powerful, knowing, and good then evil should not exist or God is not worthy of worship. If God is not worthy of worship, religious devotion becomes an ugly, grotesque practice.
I hold that the objections to the cosmological argument far outweigh the objections to the evidential problem of evil and the logical problem of evil. I feel that the argument from evil relies only on logic whereas the cosmological argument relies on mere assertion that existence of humanity has a definitive purpose. Especially when there is no clear explanation of what that purpose is. The idea of a necessary being holds merit, however that necessary being has no identifiable purpose, either. The atheist and the agnostic have one thing in common in regard to the nature of "God." The atheist says that if there were a God, we would have no clear indication of his nature and will just as the agnostic says that if there is a God, we have no clear indication of his nature and will. The theist, however, will normally have trouble abandoning the idea that God is anything other than omnipotent, omniscient, and omni-benevolent which brings me to the fallacy and irresponsibility of blind faith and my ultimate conclusion of why the argument from evil is more persuasive.
Though I may only analyze the theist versus the atheist, I must give my argument from an agnostic perspective. It's much like forcing yourself to be identified only by either the Republican party or the Democratic party when in reality you hold opinions as well as reject opinions of both parties. Many would deem agnosticism as "fence riding." I believe this is an unfair assumption. My basic argument is that I have no reason to believe in God's existence but I have every reason to believe in the possibility that I'm wrong. The universe is too complicated for me to state any definitive truth about what may or may not be beyond its limits. This fact, however, does not deem the debate between theism and atheism unnecessary. These logical possibilities are important aspects of our culture and how we practice the art of philosophy. The fundamental value I hold is that whether one's faith lies in science or religion, a fair analysis must be made for every possibility. Blind faith is irresponsible because it closes one's mind to values that lie beyond the status quo. In that sense, agnosticism is a sound belief system. To force me to decide only between the cosmological argument and the argument from evil, I will have to conclude that the argument from evil is sounder based on the fallacy of its opposition. However, on a whole, agnosticism is the soundest position due to the fact that intricate possibilities permeate throughout the history of human imagination.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Let's Clear the Air, Football Fans
To football fans, and sports fans in general:
Look, I understand that there are many of you out there who are normal and understand that for a grown man to not be into sports is not un-American, nor is it weird. But there are many of you out there who do. So, let's have fun and analyze this.
It's not that I have no reverence for the activity. I have a great respect for athletes. Any kind of physical discipline is such a wonderful activity for the human body to endure. I enjoy working out when I have time and I love stretching and practicing yoga. I discipline my body in many ways. The part of my body I discipline the most in my mind. I love reading. I love studying. I love delving into everything from science and psychology to philosophy and classic literature. This is what makes me happy. This is what entertains me. Some would deem me a nerd. I take on the title with a happy smirk on my face. I'm not by any means saything that I'm too intelligent to enjoy a football game, nor do I claim to really be intelligent at all. It's just that I know more about Chaucer than I do Bob Stoops. I'm sorry... I find the former to be more interesting and more worthy of my focus. I'm sorry that I would rather ponder the universe and its mysteries than who's going to take the next OU game.
Here's the only beef I have with you, sports fan. Quit acting like I'm a freak because I don't care about a game that means nothing to me. I would rather do housework, play video games with my son, read, write, work in my garden, concoct new recipes, build something with my hands, etc. than watch a game on a field with an announcer and noisy fans wearing paint. When the day ends and the game is over, nothing about the event effects you. The world, politics, and current scientific endeavors, however, do. I understand that the game is a way for you to kick back and let loose... that's what my books, kids, and garden do for me. Trust me, I'm normal. When I say I'm not into football, IT'S REALLY OKAY. Quit wrinkling your nose at me. Instead, try the response, "Hey, that's cool."
Look, I understand that there are many of you out there who are normal and understand that for a grown man to not be into sports is not un-American, nor is it weird. But there are many of you out there who do. So, let's have fun and analyze this.
It's not that I have no reverence for the activity. I have a great respect for athletes. Any kind of physical discipline is such a wonderful activity for the human body to endure. I enjoy working out when I have time and I love stretching and practicing yoga. I discipline my body in many ways. The part of my body I discipline the most in my mind. I love reading. I love studying. I love delving into everything from science and psychology to philosophy and classic literature. This is what makes me happy. This is what entertains me. Some would deem me a nerd. I take on the title with a happy smirk on my face. I'm not by any means saything that I'm too intelligent to enjoy a football game, nor do I claim to really be intelligent at all. It's just that I know more about Chaucer than I do Bob Stoops. I'm sorry... I find the former to be more interesting and more worthy of my focus. I'm sorry that I would rather ponder the universe and its mysteries than who's going to take the next OU game.
Here's the only beef I have with you, sports fan. Quit acting like I'm a freak because I don't care about a game that means nothing to me. I would rather do housework, play video games with my son, read, write, work in my garden, concoct new recipes, build something with my hands, etc. than watch a game on a field with an announcer and noisy fans wearing paint. When the day ends and the game is over, nothing about the event effects you. The world, politics, and current scientific endeavors, however, do. I understand that the game is a way for you to kick back and let loose... that's what my books, kids, and garden do for me. Trust me, I'm normal. When I say I'm not into football, IT'S REALLY OKAY. Quit wrinkling your nose at me. Instead, try the response, "Hey, that's cool."
Sunday, April 6, 2008
The Homosexual Agenda
Well, Sally Kern is a name that will shortly become the new slang word for hatemonger as I’m sure you’re all aware. I’m not going to sit here and preach tolerance to you because tolerance is bullshit. I don’t tolerate hateful people nor the hateful words they spew into society. We all have the freedom of speech as well as the freedom to practice our religion as best we see fit. If your religion calls for you to look down on homosexuality as a sin, well, frankly I feel sorry for you. But, it’s cool. You can believe that and I will accept that. However, the moment you let your religious beliefs spur you into an action that degrades people, hurts peoples feelings, subjugates them, or implicates them as a danger to society... you’re totally batshit. I was fairly confident that the aftermath of Kern’s speech would spring Oklahomans into action. And, it did. Most of you have shown your support... FOR HER. Especially the rich and powerful bigots. Wow. Now, since her speech, I have heard the catch phrase, "homosexual agenda." I’m really interested in what that is. Could it be that telling our children it’s okay to be gay will make them grow up and BE gay? That’s interesting considering telling your kids it’s okay to accept people for who they are is a pretty damn healthy way to parent. The fact is, the only homosexual agenda in existence is the call for equal rights. That’s it.
So, since there is no "dangerous" homosexual agenda that people like Kern can logically use as a point of reference, I’ve decided to write one up myself. The following is for any of you who get the heebie jeebies by queer folk. You can use this as a reminder for why you’re uncomfortable.
The Homosexual Agenda:
Homosexuality is a crime against God and everybody knows that, duh! Hello! Everybody should be a Christian, duh! If you’re not a Christian, you go to hell and that’s what we should base our political principles on. Faggots drink the blood of Christian babies, everybody knows that! Why, they’re even writing books now. That means they want to sodomize our kids! Telling kids that other kids might have two mommies or two daddies will confuse them and make them worship Satan, duh! They’ll get confused about their own sexuality and partake in mass orgies where everyone gets the AIDS. Listen, everyone knows that the gays are giong to kill us. They want to hit on us when we walk down the street or when we shop for groceries and guns. They want to sodomize you and if you don’t punch them, they will. And after they have sodomized our kids and spread their gooey AIDS on our lawn furniture, they’ll start running our country and God will rain hellfire down on us. That’s what’ll happen. Yep. They hate us. Let’s kill ’em.
So, that’s the homosexual agenda, short and sweet. Enjoy. Any comments or suggestions for adendums are welcome.
So, since there is no "dangerous" homosexual agenda that people like Kern can logically use as a point of reference, I’ve decided to write one up myself. The following is for any of you who get the heebie jeebies by queer folk. You can use this as a reminder for why you’re uncomfortable.
The Homosexual Agenda:
Homosexuality is a crime against God and everybody knows that, duh! Hello! Everybody should be a Christian, duh! If you’re not a Christian, you go to hell and that’s what we should base our political principles on. Faggots drink the blood of Christian babies, everybody knows that! Why, they’re even writing books now. That means they want to sodomize our kids! Telling kids that other kids might have two mommies or two daddies will confuse them and make them worship Satan, duh! They’ll get confused about their own sexuality and partake in mass orgies where everyone gets the AIDS. Listen, everyone knows that the gays are giong to kill us. They want to hit on us when we walk down the street or when we shop for groceries and guns. They want to sodomize you and if you don’t punch them, they will. And after they have sodomized our kids and spread their gooey AIDS on our lawn furniture, they’ll start running our country and God will rain hellfire down on us. That’s what’ll happen. Yep. They hate us. Let’s kill ’em.
So, that’s the homosexual agenda, short and sweet. Enjoy. Any comments or suggestions for adendums are welcome.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
I Am Slowly Going Crazy... One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Switch... Crazy Going Slowly Am I... Six, Five, Four, Three, Two, One, Switch...
So, my family is either sick or hurting. I won't go into any details but I will say this: babies are not so much fun when they're cranky because of their condition. I do not wish to complain about my one year old as much as I wish to complain about my inability to relax. So, it goes. My poor wife. She has broken at least one rib. I say at least because we haven't been to the doctor yet because we can't afford insurance. We've talked to two doctors but not as official patients. Well, here's my blog. Between a nine year old that wants my attention, a one year old that wants alot of attention, and a wife who needs to take it easy, I have my hands full. Blog done. Bye bye.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Mister Blake and his Dumb Hat
I have to be very honest, though I threaten to anger the gods of literature. I do not like this particular poetic movement. I have to be even more honest and admit that I hardly like poetry at all. With the exception of more narrative formulas such as Chaucer, Milton, and Shakespeare, I don't much care for poetry as much as I do prose - fiction and non-fiction alike. Maybe this is English major heresy, I don't know, but I have analyzed many poets and I just don't care for them.
Though I quite understand the significance of Blake, I have a hard time interpreting some of his work because it's only circumstantial to the things that were going on around him during his time. This is an admission to ignorance. If I researched the politics and social discrepencies of his particular time and place, I would probably have a better appreciation for "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell." But that's what happens when you read a work without doing research behind it. Otherwise, I don't see much about it that is timeless.
Though I quite understand the significance of Blake, I have a hard time interpreting some of his work because it's only circumstantial to the things that were going on around him during his time. This is an admission to ignorance. If I researched the politics and social discrepencies of his particular time and place, I would probably have a better appreciation for "The Marriage of Heaven and Hell." But that's what happens when you read a work without doing research behind it. Otherwise, I don't see much about it that is timeless.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)