The lady has heart. Those lacking the same will never walk in her light. Great interview. What I notice on comments is so much anger by some. They lack what this lady mentions, heart and imagination.
Oh, the atheists really hated on Marilynne Robinson in spades on this. How much do you want to get that none of them ever read her or could manage to make head nor tail of her brilliant writing?
So interesting how some discuss America as if it once was a splendid perfect just democracy and society, and now it’s not…discuss America as if something different, new, tragic has happened to alter its moral ethical just beginning in 1619 until now, that is until this “different, new, tragic” thing happened.
I tuned into this as an admirer of the author's prose, which I count among the best of our time. To pay her an especially generous compliment, I will admit that her fiction, in the way it ennobles its ethical vision with aesthetic sensibility, reminds me of George Eliot. However, this interview sounds like a brief for what she would probably call global Christian socialism. I would call it pathological altruism. To be sure, she propounds her view with a rare coherence of thought. Nevertheless, this only clarifies her instinct to surrender at every opportunity, to follow her over-developed sense of pity to all ends. Yet, to disarm the citizens of the rich world, then unconditionally to open their national borders will produce, ineluctably, some variation on that nightmare narrative titled Camp of the Saints. Western civilization will collapse into the vast multitudes of Africans, Mestizos, Muslims--none of whom sustain a high civilization and none of whom evince, in their own nations, the transcendent (also indiscriminate) empathy for which Marilynne Robinson ingenuously yearns. Must needs we indicate, explicitly, that this endgame hardly consists with her altruistic attitude? It even courts absurdity, and not only an enlargement of the human suffering she abhors. But we find through history that all idealists are victims of a deontological moral calculus: they care more about intent than about result. This is why the Western Left never has and never will apologize for their support of the early Soviet Union, despite the catastrophic death toll they enabled. They believe their intentions were good (a judgment with which I generally concur). But, in such a case, are good intentions really enough? They apply the same calculus today on questions like open immigration and the criminal justice system. Failure and catastrophe once more wait upon their ideals, but no cumulation of evidence can alter their course. For it partakes the nature of tragedy.
You really need to opem up a history book...your characterizations are ridiculous. When the Barbaric Frankish empires would pulling women apart by opposite horses, Arabics were preserving the knowledge of ancient Greeks and Romans. All Empires and nations have varied histories. Also, if you think Jesus would support capitalism as it exists in this world full of avarice and useless activity, you need to open up the Bible.
I see I am condemned to respond to myself since the auditors and commenters this author attracts are incapable of matching my level (or even hers). To detest the deontological calculus is to condemn faith itself and all teleologies founded upon revealed religion. Faith and reason are each great powers in the world. But one is blind and the other hollow. That is the real tragedy: morality is an insoluble problem. It might be better, of course, if the faithful conceded that the results of their good intentions may sometime turn dark. But, how well do the reasoners concede the limits of their moral vision or the nature of the compromises they condone between such vision as they possess and their consequentialist metrics?
Yes, we have so many writers nowadays who run rings around MR for clarity ot thought and a very personal point of view on life's meaning. Care to name a few?
![[#2024MAMA] BIGBANG (빅뱅) - 뱅뱅뱅 (BANG BANG BANG) + FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EQsYfiPR9uM/mqdefault.jpg)
The lady has heart. Those lacking the same will never walk in her light. Great interview.
What I notice on comments is so much anger by some. They lack what this lady mentions, heart and imagination.
Enjoyed this interview. Thank you for sharing!
she is such a queen.
no mention of 'housekeeping' ?
Adore that book.
Oh, the atheists really hated on Marilynne Robinson in spades on this. How much do you want to get that none of them ever read her or could manage to make head nor tail of her brilliant writing?
So interesting how some discuss America as if it once was a splendid perfect just democracy and society, and now it’s not…discuss America as if something different, new, tragic has happened to alter its moral ethical just beginning in 1619 until now, that is until this “different, new, tragic” thing happened.
Empathy need to come back to society.. Or was is never there? (..if you can hang someone for stealing a rabbit...)
I tuned into this as an admirer of the author's prose, which I count among the best of our time. To pay her an especially generous compliment, I will admit that her fiction, in the way it ennobles its ethical vision with aesthetic sensibility, reminds me of George Eliot.
However, this interview sounds like a brief for what she would probably call global Christian socialism. I would call it pathological altruism. To be sure, she propounds her view with a rare coherence of thought. Nevertheless, this only clarifies her instinct to surrender at every opportunity, to follow her over-developed sense of pity to all ends. Yet, to disarm the citizens of the rich world, then unconditionally to open their national borders will produce, ineluctably, some variation on that nightmare narrative titled Camp of the Saints. Western civilization will collapse into the vast multitudes of Africans, Mestizos, Muslims--none of whom sustain a high civilization and none of whom evince, in their own nations, the transcendent (also indiscriminate) empathy for which Marilynne Robinson ingenuously yearns. Must needs we indicate, explicitly, that this endgame hardly consists with her altruistic attitude? It even courts absurdity, and not only an enlargement of the human suffering she abhors. But we find through history that all idealists are victims of a deontological moral calculus: they care more about intent than about result. This is why the Western Left never has and never will apologize for their support of the early Soviet Union, despite the catastrophic death toll they enabled. They believe their intentions were good (a judgment with which I generally concur). But, in such a case, are good intentions really enough? They apply the same calculus today on questions like open immigration and the criminal justice system. Failure and catastrophe once more wait upon their ideals, but no cumulation of evidence can alter their course. For it partakes the nature of tragedy.
+kreek22 ^^ garbage.
kreek22 l
You really need to opem up a history book...your characterizations are ridiculous. When the Barbaric Frankish empires would pulling women apart by opposite horses, Arabics were preserving the knowledge of ancient Greeks and Romans. All Empires and nations have varied histories. Also, if you think Jesus would support capitalism as it exists in this world full of avarice and useless activity, you need to open up the Bible.
Oh, and also you are racist.
I see I am condemned to respond to myself since the auditors and commenters this author attracts are incapable of matching my level (or even hers).
To detest the deontological calculus is to condemn faith itself and all teleologies founded upon revealed religion. Faith and reason are each great powers in the world. But one is blind and the other hollow. That is the real tragedy: morality is an insoluble problem. It might be better, of course, if the faithful conceded that the results of their good intentions may sometime turn dark. But, how well do the reasoners concede the limits of their moral vision or the nature of the compromises they condone between such vision as they possess and their consequentialist metrics?
This woman is allowed to have students?
You're allowed to make TH-cam comments.
short and honest, robinson is over rated, i have read of several of her items, they can be enjoyable and relaxing but are not exceptional in thought.
unlike your comment which is so full of exceptional thought. where can i buy your books to get more exceptional thoughts?
Yes, we have so many writers nowadays who run rings around MR for clarity ot thought and a very personal point of view on life's meaning. Care to name a few?
Housekeeping is exceptional though