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

[Michael Bryson]

I agree with James Rovira regarding the two options
he outlines as implied by my argument:

"1. Milton's "God" is a character in a fiction, not
to be confused with even Milton's own conception of
the real God.
2. Milton's PL is intended to be a theodicy
defending the real God (as understood by Milton --
which would include his acknowledgment of the
limitations of human knowledge)."

But to say that "of course to uphold point two you
have to compromise point one, and to uphold point
one you have to compromise point two" is a gross
misrepresentation of my argument. I outline why at
length in the Tyranny of Heaven, as well as in the
following more recent works:

“The Mysterious Darkness of Unknowing: Paradise
Lost and the God Beyond Names”
A Poem Written In Ten Books: Paradise Lost 1667,
Eds. John Shawcross and Michael Lieb. Duquesne UP,
2007, 183-212.

 "A Poem to the Unknown God: Samson Agonistes and
Negative Theology."
 Milton Quarterly, March 2008, vol. 42, No. 1, 2008,
22-43.

Michael Bryson

---- Original message ----

  Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2008 16:08:31 -0500
  From: "James Rovira" <jamesrovira at gmail.com>
  Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Knowledge, free will, etc.
  To: "John Milton Discussion List"
  <milton-l at lists.richmond.edu>

  I think Michael Bryson's post raises here, again,
  interesting points.  But he seems to be trying to
  have it both ways so winds up having it neither. 
  We seem to be confronted with two options:

  1. Milton's "God" is a character in a fiction, not
  to be confused with even Milton's own conception
  of the real God.
  2. Milton's PL is intended to be a theodicy
  defending the real God (as understood by Milton --
  which would include his acknowledgment of the
  limitations of human knowledge).

  But of course to uphold point two you have to
  compromise point one, and to uphold point one you
  have to compromise point two.  If we stick to
  point one -- that Milton's God is purely a
  fictional construct, with no certain relationship
  to the real God, even as Milton understood him --
  then we cannot believe PL is a theodicy for
  anything but this fictiionally constructed God.

  However, if we believe PL is designed to defend
  the real God as Milton understood him, then we
  have to believe the God of PL in some way
  accurately represents the real God (again, as
  Milton understood him).

  If we don't keep this tension firmly in mind, what
  we'll wind up doing is emphasizing point one (the
  God of PL is fictional) when it's convenient to
  our argument, and then point two when it's
  convenient at other points, never acknowledging
  the fundamentally unsound, self-contradictory
  nature of our argument.  I think this is to be
  guily to equivocation on the word "God" -- which
  comes to mean two things: a ficitonal construct,
  and a real deity.

  I think the way through this kind of equivocation
  is to keep the specific issue firmly in mind: does
  the God of PL, and/or the real God as understood
  by Milton, actively desire Adam and Eve to fall? 
  The only answer possible for Milton is, I think,
  no: an answer in the affirmative would be to
  defeat Milton's theodicy by making God the author
  of sin, and it doesn't matter if we're giving this
  answer for a fictional God of PL or the real God
  as Milton understood him.  "God" cannot be guilty
  of sin either way, at least for Milton. 
  Otherwise, what's the point of a theodicy? 

  Again, the elements of PL which seem to imply God
  desired Eve to fall are easily dealt with and have
  been by my previous posts.  For that matter, most
  of Michael Bryson's claims about the implications
  of some elements of PL seem to me to be easily
  dismissed.  Yes, we can take a worst possible
  reading of PL as we can of any text.  What's
  lacking is a reason for doing so that lies
  anywhere other than the predisposition of the
  interpreter.  Can you make the God of PL look
  bad?  Yes.  But then, you can make anyone and
  anything look bad.  So what?  Does this give us
  any real insight into the text or its characters? 

  Jim R

  On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 11:27 AM, Michael Bryson
  <michael.bryson at csun.edu> wrote:

    Neither when I make a point about Yahweh, nor
    when I make a point about the Father in PL, am I
    making a point about "God." Who or what is
    "Milton's deity"? I do not know. In Milton's own
    words,  "God, as he really is, is far beyond
    man's imagination, let alone his understanding"
    (YP 6:133). What I do know is Milton's poetic
    creation, and to deny that that creation is at
    least partially modeled on "classical gods"
    (whether or not imagined in terms of a quote
    from King Lear) seems to me an untenable claim.

    And it is perfectly consistent with Milton's
    theodicy to say that the Father may (or does)
    want Eve to fall. The Father, a literary
    character after all, is not what is being
    defended in that theodicy.

  >________________
  >_______________________________________________
  >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/20081108/94d36e55/attachment-0001.html