Skip to main content

Myron Kriegman



 Myron Kriegman!  I had a moment recently in which I had been blocked looking for the name for a certain character in the John Updike novel ROGER'S VERSION (1986). 

Now I am determined not only to remember the name but to make it the subject of a blog post. So ... here it is!  

I no longer have the book around: I may have donated it to a library at some point in recent years. The novel turns largely on a three-way argument over God and the worshipper: whether there is a God and whether that question can be answered by reason or requires faith. Kriegman occupies the "no to God -- and yes to reason" position in the triangle. The titular Roger (last name Lambert, although we are supposed to connect this to Roger Chillingworth, from Hawthorne) occupies the "yes to God -- and no to reason" PoV. Roger sees himself as a follower of Karl Barth in believing in a hidden God, who cannot be reached by human ratiocinations. 

The third character in the triangle is Dale, a name reminiscent of Reverend Dimmesdale, also from the Hawthornian source material.  Dale is a computer scientist turned evangelist. He believes that the mathematical parameters of the Big Bang must have been "fine tuned" to make Earth, life, and intelligence possible. As scientists come to understand the fine tuning better, God is "breaking through" and cannot hide any more. So: yes and yes, on the above two questions.      

I'm quoting from distant memory here, but I'm sure that at some point Roger says something to Dale along the lines of: "If He is omnipotent, He can hide if He wants to." 

Anyway: Myron Kriegman!  I have created this post to implant that name in my neurons. Don't call him "Ron," please, he asks somewhere.

Aside from the explicit sex scenes (part of the Updike formula) and the Scarlett Letter call-backs, and as one might expect the characters named Esther and Pearl, aside from all this, the book may be said to be about a half-acknowledged alliance between Lambert and Kriegman to undermine Dale. 

So far as I understand the point of view of the novel, it is that this alliance is doing something valuable (Dale is trouble), yet it is best LEFT unacknowledged.  

Again: the face above is Updike's but the name I want to remember is Myron Kriegman.    

Comments

  1. "whether there is a God and whether that question can be answered by reason or requires faith."

    By definition, faith cannot answer the question whether God exists. Belief may require faith, but belief is not knowledge. People who wish to believe resort to faith because they lack knowledge.

    Reason cannot answer the question either, unless it is preceded by evidence or a lack of evidence. Evidence of God's existence may not be direct, but one may attempt to use reason to deduce it from indirect evidence. If no evidence is known to exist, then we can use reason to infer that God does not exist, but the conclusion that God does not exist is not knowledge, because it is provisional, since evidence might be discovered in the future.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak