So evidently Mike Duran has in some way or other learned of this discussion over here and, in a recent article, responded to several of your comments (e.g., Faith No More, Reverend Jeremiah, padraic and so forth). Unsurprisingly and quite appropriately, he was rather disappointed with the quality of the objections, including the title Summer gave it (presumably for the lulz). Unfortunately he is right. The gratuitous invective and unrecognizable caricatures aside, whatever is left over in the posts here certainly did not even grasp his point, much less interact with it.
Duran felt that the volatility which his article generated here was a product of either a lack of clarity on his part in expressing his point or an outright rejection of it by those commenting here. In his follow-up piece he chose to take ownership for the mess and assume that the problem was primarily the result of him expressing his point with insufficient clarity. Although shouldering some of the responsibility like that is commendable, I do find myself contemplating a more fundamental problem: If you did not properly understand his point, and clearly you did not, then how could you reject it? In other words, I am dismissing as untenable his second option, that the resulting volatility had anything to do with an outright rejection of his point, since the only thing being rejected in this thread are crude caricatures of it.
So Duran thinks that clarifying his thinking should simply accomplish more rejection of his thesis. "Which I'm fine with," he said. "I prefer clarity to agreement." I concur with that sentiment; however, such clarity will not lead to further rejection of his thesis, because no relevant rejection of his thesis has yet occurred. Hopefully with his response and clarification, a rational and specifically relevant rejection can be had.
----------
References:
Duran, M. (2012, January 9). "Why a Judeo-Christian worldview is essential to good fiction." DeCompose. [Blog].
http://mikeduran.com/2012/01/why-a-judeo...d-fiction/
__________ (2012, February 6). "Without moral absolutes, your story sucks!" DeCompose. [Blog].
http://mikeduran.com/2012/02/without-mor...ory-sucks/
Duran felt that the volatility which his article generated here was a product of either a lack of clarity on his part in expressing his point or an outright rejection of it by those commenting here. In his follow-up piece he chose to take ownership for the mess and assume that the problem was primarily the result of him expressing his point with insufficient clarity. Although shouldering some of the responsibility like that is commendable, I do find myself contemplating a more fundamental problem: If you did not properly understand his point, and clearly you did not, then how could you reject it? In other words, I am dismissing as untenable his second option, that the resulting volatility had anything to do with an outright rejection of his point, since the only thing being rejected in this thread are crude caricatures of it.
So Duran thinks that clarifying his thinking should simply accomplish more rejection of his thesis. "Which I'm fine with," he said. "I prefer clarity to agreement." I concur with that sentiment; however, such clarity will not lead to further rejection of his thesis, because no relevant rejection of his thesis has yet occurred. Hopefully with his response and clarification, a rational and specifically relevant rejection can be had.
----------
References:
Duran, M. (2012, January 9). "Why a Judeo-Christian worldview is essential to good fiction." DeCompose. [Blog].
http://mikeduran.com/2012/01/why-a-judeo...d-fiction/
__________ (2012, February 6). "Without moral absolutes, your story sucks!" DeCompose. [Blog].
http://mikeduran.com/2012/02/without-mor...ory-sucks/
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
