My recent study of morality in philosophy has had me reading some heavy stuff (Schopenhauer, Kant, Nietzsche, Hume, Aristotle [N Ethics - again]), and I felt like reading some fiction for a break so went to the bookstore and came across Oliver Twist.
I read the opening paragraph and it was beautiful (Charles Dickens for you!), and bought it right away.
Well, I have read a good deal of it now and I am astonished how dark and ruthless it is (it hasn't been a break at all). Well, I mean, I’m impressed! I expected it to be dark and Victorian but I just never expected DICKENS to have such a dark-world view and to spare no single syllable in describing the destitution of the poor...
Please, sir, can I have some more?
I love this book. I will certainly be reading some more Dickens in the future…however I have always preferred writers who take a more objective approach to their characters. I.e. it is clear Dickens is being bias towards every other character except Oliver (the personification of the poor). I don’t like this because it prevents the author (and the reader) from getting into the heads of the other characters and seeing what angle THEY see the situation from.
I am interested in the 1800s because, in my opinion, the greatest philosophers (the darkest, most pessimistic, nihilistic -and enlightening) were writing in these times . . .
It seems truly to have been a dark time for the world and to have had its effect on many great minds. . .
"God wished women to be smooth and to rejoice in their locks alone growing spontaneously, as a horse in his mane. But He adorned man like the lions, with a beard, and endowed him as an attribute of manhood, with a hairy chest--a sign of strength and rule." - St. Clement of Alexandria
"This, then, is the mark of the man, the beard. By this, he is seen to be a man. It is older than Eve. It is the token of the superior nature….It is therefore unholy to desecrate the symbol of manhood, hairiness.” - St. Clement of Alexandria
No Ambrose is quite right to pick up on your creepiness. Bnatural did a while back when you were talking about a world full of candy and sweets and rainbows . . .
What were you talking about, The new Netherland Ranch?
'I have to disagree with the idea that the only reason one would choose to love God is to avoid Hell. By the same token a child only loves their parents to avoid punishment. ' -gnome
I agree with your reasoning here, but the rest is dogmatic trite. When you can explain to me, logically and reasonably, how the whipping, laceration and crucifixion of a man saves me from my sin, then I will begin to listen.
P.S. also, I don't have any sin or guilt - so how does it save me? I have always been utterly confused as to why I should feel guilt or sin about anything I have ever done?-because I never have.
On my death-bed I will be lamenting over the things I haven't done, not over the things I have.
What's done is done and can't be undone: It's not my problem . . . I've got my money.
What you gels are rambling about I call ‘elevator etiquette’: where you’re in an elevator and someone lets you go out first and then it’s an awkward exit of people all trying to let each other go out first . . .
Human, all too human.
Where is the virtue in selflessness if you expect a relative return?
Why not just be like me? Selfish - and spare yourself the detour . . .
Oliver Twist
Thanks! Which is his best book, by the way? Are his others very different from Oliver Twist?