[percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 2
Michael Larson
larsonovic at gmail.com
Sun Aug 2 15:58:20 EDT 2020
Joe,
Excellent background. Thank you!
ML
On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 2:04 PM <percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org> wrote:
> Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to
> percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> percy-l-owner at lists.ibiblio.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 1 (Joseph Francisco)
> 2. Re: Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1 (Michael Larson)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 13:59:01 -0400
> From: Joseph Francisco <joe.francisco4591 at gmail.com>
> To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion"
> <percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 1
> Message-ID:
> <CAEg2PpJSKLYfB5cB1pqVFmzsaQ81Hj+5HmPeT=
> vwP-SP3HKXHQ at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> If I can still add to this thread: I just happened to pick the "Morte
> Darthur" off of my book shelves and of course I saw two familiar names:
> Lancelot and Percival. Certainly reasonable to think that the Dr would have
> delved into medieval literature for inspiration, pursuant to the Catholic
> quality of his writing.
>
> So this is to say that perhaps it would be helpful, for those who don't
> know, or have forgotten, that Lancelot is a knight mired in his sin, unable
> to respond to the presence of the Blessed Sacrament, as his heart is
> "harder than stone and bitterer than the tree." He later runs across a
> hermit and confesses himself, receives council about the error of his ways
> and how he might fix them, and is absolved.
>
> Sir Percival, on the other hand, was a knight of near-perfect faith in
> Christ. He is rewaded with a strong and beautful horse, while in the
> preceding story, Sir Lancelot loses his horse.
>
> Just a little background on what may have been WP's inspiration for his own
> characters. Forgive me if I have misreported any details of these dense,
> allegorical tales, the language of which features many foreign words and
> usages.
>
> --Joe Francisco
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2020 at 5:12 PM Michael Larson <larsonovic at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Rhonda,
> >
> > That is an interesting speculation. Of course, the true priest always
> > presents the Immaculate Christ, right, specifically in the mass and the
> > sacraments? But then in this case, we can't really say that Lance's
> > confession is a sacramental one. In fact, it is clearly not. So the role
> of
> > Percival is indeed reduced more to friend than priest, in which case the
> > emphasis on fellow sinner is more apt. On the other hand, Percy paints
> the
> > dramatic situation to suggest a sacramental setting, the confined cell,
> the
> > silence of the priest throughout all the long confession, the fact that
> the
> > listener IS a priest, etc.. So he is playing with both ideas. The silence
> > of Percival speaks volumes, though. There is in it both a pregnant
> judgment
> > and a way to bear it, I suspect. But that is in the pages we do not see
> ...
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 2, 2020 at 11:04 AM <percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to
> >> percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org
> >>
> >> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >> https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l
> >> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >> percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org
> >>
> >> You can reach the person managing the list at
> >> percy-l-owner at lists.ibiblio.org
> >>
> >> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> >> than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..."
> >>
> >>
> >> Today's Topics:
> >>
> >> 1. Debt Forgiveness and Lancelot (Michael Larson)
> >> 2. Re: Debt Forgiveness and Lancelot (RHONDA MCDONNELL)
> >>
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Message: 1
> >> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 17:37:13 -0500
> >> From: Michael Larson <larsonovic at gmail.com>
> >> To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org
> >> Subject: [percy-l] Debt Forgiveness and Lancelot
> >> Message-ID:
> >> <
> >> CAMmLp8iMYv2ks-wmUo9y6RJEDu_RffaEvsYYYfm1sjM5Wp+GWQ at mail.gmail.com>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >>
> >> Debt forgiveness is for the ignorant (those who know not what they do)
> >> and
> >> for the repentant, those who are sorry for their wrongs and aim to amend
> >> their lives. This latter implies a belief in an objective moral order.
> >>
> >> In *Lancelot*, three ways are proposed (p. 255-57): 1) Sodom: the way of
> >> the modern world (i.e. rejection of an objective moral order), 2)
> Lance's
> >> way (i.e. a return to an objective moral order, enforced with an iron
> >> fist:
> >> a new version of the Old Law), 3) Percival's way: the way of the Church
> >> (i.e. acceptance of an objective moral order, but mercy for the
> penitent:
> >> a
> >> return to the New Law, a.k.a. Christendom).
> >>
> >> The world at present is in the final throes of the first way, but
> Lancelot
> >> and Percival agree that the future of humanity cannot continue in this
> >> way.
> >> They agree beyond any doubt that it will be either the second or the
> third
> >> way, but not both. And we know which of the two Percy, the author, is
> >> asserting by the final words of the novel, when Lancelot asks Percival,
> >> "Is
> >> there anything you wish to tell me before I leave?" and Percival, who
> has
> >> been the silent hearer of Lance's 255-page confession, responds, "Yes."
> >>
> >> Probably he will tell Lance that without sorrow for his sins, the new
> >> beginning he envisions is as doomed as the modern world.
> >>
> >> Mike Larson
> >> -------------- next part --------------
> >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> >> URL: <
> >>
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20200701/b1713152/attachment-0001.html
> >> >
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Message: 2
> >> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2020 22:56:25 +0000
> >> From: RHONDA MCDONNELL <rhonda_mcdonnell at msn.com>
> >> To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion"
> >> <percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [percy-l] Debt Forgiveness and Lancelot
> >> Message-ID:
> >> <
> >>
> DM6PR14MB26173BA65586259A43104B7AE46C0 at DM6PR14MB2617.namprd14.prod.outlook.com
> >> >
> >>
> >> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >>
> >> Thanks for the perspective, Michael. Wondering what Father John is going
> >> to say has taken up some mental energy on my end, as well. I?ve always
> >> imagined that he would note Lance?s hypocrisy and, as a stand in for
> God,
> >> present the ?maculate Christ? as Tom Moore sees in Love in the Ruins. In
> >> other words, Father John would speak to Lancelot not as a judge or even
> a
> >> priest, but as a fellow sinner who is, even so, a believer.
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Rhonda McDonnell
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPhone
> >>
> >> On Jul 1, 2020, at 6:38 PM, Michael Larson <larsonovic at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> ?
> >> Debt forgiveness is for the ignorant (those who know not what they do)
> >> and for the repentant, those who are sorry for their wrongs and aim to
> >> amend their lives. This latter implies a belief in an objective moral
> order.
> >>
> >> In Lancelot, three ways are proposed (p. 255-57): 1) Sodom: the way of
> >> the modern world (i.e. rejection of an objective moral order), 2)
> Lance's
> >> way (i.e. a return to an objective moral order, enforced with an iron
> fist:
> >> a new version of the Old Law), 3) Percival's way: the way of the Church
> >> (i.e. acceptance of an objective moral order, but mercy for the
> penitent: a
> >> return to the New Law, a.k.a. Christendom).
> >>
> >> The world at present is in the final throes of the first way, but
> >> Lancelot and Percival agree that the future of humanity cannot continue
> in
> >> this way. They agree beyond any doubt that it will be either the second
> or
> >> the third way, but not both. And we know which of the two Percy, the
> >> author, is asserting by the final words of the novel, when Lancelot asks
> >> Percival, "Is there anything you wish to tell me before I leave?" and
> >> Percival, who has been the silent hearer of Lance's 255-page confession,
> >> responds, "Yes."
> >>
> >> Probably he will tell Lance that without sorrow for his sins, the new
> >> beginning he envisions is as doomed as the modern world.
> >>
> >> Mike Larson
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------
> >> * Percy-L Discussion Archives:
> >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/
> >>
> >> * Manage Your Membership:
> >> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l
> >>
> >> * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org
> >>
> >> * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy
> >> -------------- next part --------------
> >> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> >> URL: <
> >>
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20200701/f414ce88/attachment-0001.html
> >> >
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> Subject: Digest Footer
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Percy-L mailing list
> >> Percy-L at lists.ibiblio.org
> >> https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l
> >>
> >>
> >> ------------------------------
> >>
> >> End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 1
> >> ***************************************
> >>
> >
> > ----------------------------------
> > * Percy-L Discussion Archives:
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/
> >
> > * Manage Your Membership:
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l
> >
> > * Contact the Moderator: percy-l-owner (at) lists.ibiblio.org
> >
> > * Visit The Walker Percy Project: http://www.ibiblio.org/wpercy
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20200802/a520eddc/attachment-0001.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 2 Aug 2020 14:02:16 -0500
> From: Michael Larson <larsonovic at gmail.com>
> To: percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org
> Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1
> Message-ID:
> <CAMmLp8id_u=
> xsOtt8+An72cvgPQ8M1we7RFUxZ_8j4OQVki47g at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Tom,
>
> Thanks for the post.
>
> I think I am using the term "rhetoric" in a broader sense than you are.
> That is to say, I am not using it as a synonym for "persuasion," though
> persuasive effect would certainly be a component of rhetoric. Then again,
> so would critical thinking--as well as the use of logic and grammar, to
> round out the classical trivium--and several other skills. The rhetorical
> act involves everything, from start to finish, that goes into the eventual
> communication of what one believes to be true. It is possible to be very
> skilled in many or all of those components and still to misapprehend the
> objective truth of the thing being examined. That was the point I was
> making. It follows, then, from my use of "rhetoric" that "critical
> thinking," especially in the way that you have defined it (i.e. as a
> conscious attempt to discover truth, often in consultation with the
> arguments of others) cannot be, or at least should not be, divorced from
> the art of rhetoric. If it is divorced, it is more likely to be sophistry
> than rhetoric.
>
> My use of "elegance" and "cohesion" was merely the naming of two specific
> elements of rhetoric, not meant to be comprehensive but rather to
> illustrate how portions of a skill set might be differentiated from the
> objective truth toward which the skill set is being employed.
>
> The following statement of yours is interesting:
>
> "... regardless of how sure we may be that we've tp what's true, it never
> flips over into The Truth once and for all. Every conclusion, having better
> or worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I
> think, is the inescapable predicament of finite bodies that think in an
> infinite universe."
>
> What you describe here is definitely accurate with regards to the
> individual who is attempting to perceive a truth that cannot be proven
> deductively. Lacking infinite knowledge, we must always make our assertions
> in the framework of what is more or less probable. Aristotle explains this
> well in his discussion of inductive reasoning in the service of rhetoric.
> However, from the side of whatever is actually true (about whatever is
> under consideration), the once-and-for-all-ness is not subject to human
> error or ignorance or blindness. In other words, the objective truth
> doesn't need an escape clause, like we do, to change positions based on new
> information.
>
> Let's take the Catholic Church's claim to be the divinely appointed
> authority (and consequent protection from error) in matters of faith and
> morals. That claim is either objectively true, or it is not. Individuals
> can examine the claim, as Percy did, and decide it is more or less probable
> and make their decisions accordingly, but the reality of the situation just
> is what it is, regardless of the finite mind's ability to assess the odds.
>
> When you say this, "If that's Lance's confession, it sounds more like a
> kind politician's unapologetic 'apology' to me. I really don't see how it
> could warrant any kind of absolution or release," I am in complete
> agreement with you. And the rest of your analysis in that paragraph seems
> spot on to me as well. That's why I said, in the very beginning of this
> discussion, that Lance is surely not about to be "absolved" by Percival
> when the novel ends. Yes, of course, his "confession" has been cathartic,
> and he believes he has found the means of a restart, as you call it. But
> that is not how Percival sees it. He has something more to tell Lance. The
> whole novel has been leading up to this moment where Lance feels finally
> purged of his side of the story and is now ready to move on and live (self)
> righteously in defiance of a world gone mad. And now Percival is finally
> ready and willing to speak. Brilliantly, his words will occur off camera.
>
> In your final paragraph, you seem to be saying that Percy himself is,
> through the novel, changing the notion of sacramental confession into
> existential confession, as Lance perhaps does. But this is to ignore the
> role of Percival, who, in the final pages of the novel, could not be more
> clearly distinguished from Lance. And your speculation that Percy is
> rejecting "the illusions of an objective moral code or truth" seems
> entirely unfounded, given that neither Lance nor Percival makes such a
> rejection. In fact, they are united in their opposition to the modern
> world, which has indeed abandoned the notion of objective truth. Their
> solutions to that problem, however, are quite different.
>
> Best,
> Mike
>
> On Sun, Aug 2, 2020 at 11:00 AM <percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org> wrote:
>
> > Send Percy-L mailing list submissions to
> > percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org
> >
> > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> > https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l
> > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> > percy-l-request at lists.ibiblio.org
> >
> > You can reach the person managing the list at
> > percy-l-owner at lists.ibiblio.org
> >
> > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> > than "Re: Contents of Percy-L digest..."
> >
> >
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> > 1. Re: Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25 (Thomas Gollier)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2020 15:25:03 -0700
> > From: Thomas Gollier <tgollier at gmail.com>
> > To: "Percy-L: Literary and Philosophical Discussion"
> > <percy-l at lists.ibiblio.org>
> > Subject: Re: [percy-l] Percy-L Digest, Vol 161, Issue 25
> > Message-ID:
> > <CAMVPF1Ftj_55BrafJ6MSB5V8iabcLuU_1AYdDhzum9yAj=
> > hSdg at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > Good to hear from you.
> >
> > You brought me up short with your reference to me teaching a "rhetorical
> > skill set," since I'm adamantly opposed to
> > mixing rhetoric, in the sense of persuading others, with critical
> thinking.
> > However, the standard of "consistent and
> > complete" ? I not sure where "elegant and cohesive" came from ? is the
> > basis of persuading others, but critical
> > thinking, while it uses the same standard, is more concerned with
> > persuading oneself as to what one should believe
> > is true. Critical thinking, at its best, is a self-conscious
> back-and-forth
> > collective effort toward discovering
> > truth. While "consistent" may be deductive, however, "completeness" is
> > inductive, so regardless of how sure we may be
> > that we've tp what's true, it never flips over into The Truth once and
> for
> > all. Every conclusion, having better or
> > worse reasons for believing it is true, is open to debate. This is, I
> > think, is the inescapable predicament of
> > finite bodies that think in an infinite universe.
> >
> > What I found more interesting, though, and that you find, presumably on
> the
> > basis of an objective moral code, both
> > "Lance *and* Margot to be untrustworthy in serious ways." If that's
> Lance's
> > confession, it sounds more like a kind
> > politician's unapologetic "apology" to me. I really don't see how it
> could
> > warrant any kind of absolution or
> > release. At first, their relationship was "transactional." He offered the
> > Southern aristocracy; she offered Texas
> > money. And, they did seem to share the common objective of refurbishing
> of
> > their house. But when the house was done,
> > he remarks, she seemed to be done too. If the relationship were purely
> > transactional, the transaction was completed,
> > and each could have simply moved on. But no, the confession consists in
> the
> > explanation or recounting of how
> > something more had formed in their marriage, what I am calling a "moral
> > bond" between them, and that she, not Lance,
> > had betrayed it. He even seems to try to convince himself that the sexual
> > infidelity should not be such a big
> > deal, but it is, and it irrevocably broke that bond between them with
> such
> > finality that he must have video evidence
> > of the act itself. His "confession" is a matter of coming to understand
> the
> > causes and consequences of what had
> > happened, the crimes he had committed, so as to find the absolution or
> > release that would allow a restart to his
> > life. Is that even possible after such crimes?
> >
> > Personally, what I really like about this novel is that it sharpens the
> > contrasts and contours of Percy's
> > existentialism, and in the process it, somewhat paradoxically, makes his
> > personal Catholicism more comprehensible to me.
> > He seems to take the "confession" ? the thing that apparently attracted
> him
> > to Catholicism in the first place ? and
> > makes it into something different from the repentance and forgiveness
> (that
> > is not forgiveness) it is within the
> > Church. I would argue more generally that he rejects the
> depersonalizations
> > of abstract Gods and Churches, the
> > illusions of an objective moral code or truth. Perhaps that's a bit
> > speculative? But he does, I think, try to the
> > bring or give what truth those things can have for us to bear on our
> actual
> > existence.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Tom
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 1:35 PM Michael Larson <larsonovic at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Tom,
> > >
> > > You're not annoying me. I appreciate the dialogue. I'll try to respond.
> > >
> > > I'll start with your question: " How does the notion of a 'hierarchy of
> > > subjectivity' come from the possibility of infinite subjective
> > > interpretations and the fact some of those interpretations are better
> > than
> > > others?"
> > >
> > > It comes contained in the last part of your question itself: "... the
> > fact
> > > that some of those interpretations are better than others." If some
> > > interpretations are better than others, a hierarchy is by nature
> already
> > > established and an objective standard is likewise already implied.
> > >
> > > When you speak of how you grade student writing, you are talking about
> > > evaluating their display of a rhetorical skill set, not about their
> grasp
> > > of the truth. Those are two different things. Either one can be judged
> > > hierarchically. Elegance and cohesiveness of communication make a scale
> > > that is independent of what is true. One person may offer an elegant
> > > defense and plenty of cohesive reasoning as to why the earth is flat.
> > > Another person might stumble through a weak defense of the spinning
> > globe.
> > > We might rank the former ahead of the latter in the skill set of
> > rhetoric,
> > > but we might rank the latter ahead of the former in his apprehension of
> > the
> > > truth as to the physical nature of the earth.
> > >
> > > The same is true when we look at a piece of literature: one person
> might
> > > write beautifully about something that goes quite astray of what the
> > story
> > > means while another person might struggle in attempting to articulate
> > what
> > > is essentially a deep understanding of that same story. Of course, we
> are
> > > most pleased when the two skills--communication and apprehension--are
> > > joined in a single work. Take, for example, Tolkien's marvelous essay
> (a
> > > lecture, actually), "The Monsters and the Critics." Prior to that
> > lecture,
> > > many well-known scholars had failed to grasp both the artistic genius
> and
> > > the deep layers of meaning in *Beowulf*. In fact, they disdained many
> of
> > > the very things that Tolkien was able to rescue--and not because his
> > > subjective interpretation was more popular. It wasn't. In fact, it
> wasn't
> > > fully known until he put it into words, but when he did, many objective
> > > truths about the poem were made manifest to anyone who cared to see
> them
> > > and especially to those who had always had a sense for them but lacked
> > the
> > > articulation. In short, Tolkien's interpretation was better than that
> of
> > > prior critics, and people knew it. They knew it because it is possible
> > for
> > > humans to recognize when something is objectively true, especially when
> > it
> > > provides relief against that which has been less than fully true.
> > >
> > > What I am asserting here seems in direct opposition to what you say a
> > > little later in your post: "I propose to my students that the reason
> for
> > > objectively seeking out different interpretations is not to pick the
> > right
> > > one." My first thought about this is that there might not be a "right
> > one."
> > > The presence of several interpretations is no guarantee that any of
> them
> > > has a good grasp on what is being interpreted. Alternatively, they
> might
> > > all be basically "right," more or less, though perhaps with differing
> > > levels of rhetorical effectiveness. In any case, I would always
> encourage
> > > my students to compare and contrast, to evaluate arguments, to measure
> > what
> > > they read against reality, insofar as they have access to it. When the
> > > object is truth, then everyone--critics and readers--is essentially
> > working
> > > together toward the same goal, though some with more success than
> others.
> > >
> > > But it sounds like, for you, the object is not so much truth as it is
> to
> > > work out a kind of subjective *average *in one's own mind. You say,
> "[The
> > > reason for seeking out different interpretations] is to get a
> > non-objective
> > > sense of the center and most comprehensive comprehension of all those
> > > various interpretations." There is nothing wrong, of course, with
> > > understanding a variety of interpretations, but if the end of that
> > > understanding is merely to find the center of that variety, then we
> have
> > > diverted our gaze from the object under consideration and shifted it to
> > the
> > > amalgamated opinion of the considerers. This is not exactly pure
> > > subjectivism, which would be interested only in one's own opinion, but
> it
> > > is a kind of preoccupation with potential means rather than the use of
> > > those means toward their natural end: to arrive at truth regarding the
> > > object under consideration.
> > >
> > > In your paragraph about morality, I'm not sure I follow the shift from
> > > moral code to moral bond. To recognize a moral code, whether subjective
> > or
> > > objective, is a different mental act than to trust a neighbor not to
> harm
> > > you. The former is concerned with classification (i.e. this is good,
> this
> > > is evil) while the latter is concerned with prudential judgment (I
> > predict
> > > that you will not burn my house down). So once again, both acts can be
> > > present: I can judge (whether accurately or not) that someone's burning
> > > down my house would be an evil act even as I also judge (whether
> > accurately
> > > or not) that I do not think you will commit this act. Then if you do
> > > actually burn down my house, I will know that my trust was misplaced;
> the
> > > house will go up in smoke, but the classification of arson as evil will
> > be
> > > quite untouched by those flames.
> > >
> > > It's true that if this happened, I would no longer trust you not to
> burn
> > > my house down. And yes, it's also possible, depending on how much I
> > trusted
> > > you to begin with, that I might start to doubt, in general, my judgment
> > of
> > > who is trustworthy and who is not. But to lose trust in others or in
> > one's
> > > ability to assess the trustworthiness of others is not the same as
> losing
> > > the sense that some things are moral and that other things are immoral.
> > >
> > > I too find Lance and Margot to be untrustworthy in serious ways. The
> acts
> > > that reveal their untrustworthiness are also acts I understand to be
> > > objectively immoral. I would argue further that to even speak of trust
> > and
> > > distrust once again implies an objective sense of morality in the one
> who
> > > trusts or distrusts. What makes us trust someone are typically things
> > > understood to be morally good: honesty, forthrightness, patience,
> > > stability, etc.. What makes us distrust someone are typically things
> > > understood to be morally bad: lying, deception, short-temperedness,
> > > fickleness, etc.. We know these things. Deep down.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > >
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL: <
> >
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20200801/b15d82af/attachment-0001.html
> > >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Subject: Digest Footer
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Percy-L mailing list
> > Percy-L at lists.ibiblio.org
> > https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 1
> > ***************************************
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20200802/1f708b64/attachment.html
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Percy-L mailing list
> Percy-L at lists.ibiblio.org
> https://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/percy-l
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Percy-L Digest, Vol 162, Issue 2
> ***************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/percy-l/attachments/20200802/57efb8aa/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Percy-L
mailing list