[Milton-L] Knowledge, free will, etc.

[Michael Bryson]

I mean no denigration to anyone by referring to a
writer by surname. If I were analyzing an extended
passage by any contemporary scholar, I would refer
to him or her by first name and last name the first
time, and by last name each subsequent time. That
is, so far as I can tell, a rather standard
practice, and one not intended to communicate any
sort of denigratory intent.

As far as my or Carol Barton's readings of the poem,
the characters, and the parenting examples, perhaps
that is best left where it is...

Michael Bryson

---- Original message ----

  Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 11:58:14 -0500
  From: "Carol Barton" <cbartonphd1 at verizon.net>
  Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Knowledge, free will, etc.
  To: "John Milton Discussion List"
  <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>

  

  Michael (I will not denigrate you
  by referring only to your surname), you can twist
  the point in any direction you
  wish, but the context of the example of the child
  with the lighter was not
  responsible parenting, and you know that as well
  as I do. The analogy is
  imprecise *because* an older child playing with a
  lighter--having reached the
  age of reason, and been taught the dangers of such
  pastimes--would be an
  arsonist at worst and an imbecile at best. But
  this is about free will--about
  the way we behave, left to our devices, when we
  think no one is watching,
  and there's no one there to intervene in
  our disobedience. (And of course
  you will object that God in his omniscience is
  always watching--but if he
  intervened in this instance, Satan would be right
  about his eliciting "forc't
  hallelujahs.")
   
  Adam and Eve were adults,
  equipped with right reason--were forewarned of the
  danger--and were capable
  of recognizing the potential jeopardy of their
  situation, as they
  themselves make clear in their argument in Book
  IX. But the fact that the Father
  foreknew they would fall does not mean he that
  either *caused*
  or *willed* them to do so, as you keep arguing. To
  prevent them from
  falling would be to prevent them from choosing to
  stand. The nature of the test
  was unequivocal, since Milton was constrained by
  the elements of the biblical
  narrative on which his poem was based. The point
  of the test was obedience. We
  can argue about the equity of the punishment and
  whether or not it fit the
  crime, but that severe consequence wasn't Milton's
  invention--and
  ultimately, even that is mitigated by the
  intercession of the
  Son.
   
  You choose to see Milton's God as
  Empson did--as sinister, manipulative, even cruel,
  and that is your right. But I
  don't (though I don't see him as unproblematic
  either), and I don't think Milton
  did.
   
  Is that a
  reasonable justification for insult and
  dismissiveness, in your
  universe?
   
  Best to all,
   
  Carol Barton

     

  >________________
  >_______________________________________________
  >Milton-L mailing list
  >Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu >Manage your list
  membership and access list archives at
  http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l
  > >Milton-L web site: http://johnmilton.org/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.richmond.edu/pipermail/milton-l/attachments/20081108/2d9b3f7d/attachment.html