Subject
Comment on VNA's response to BB's response
From
Date
Body
lines) ------------------
> VNA wrote:
> >I think Nabokov would argue that the supernatural, if it exists, would
be
> unlike anything any person could imagine, certainly >nothing anyone could
> "prove" with "evidence."
>
> Unhappily, I can currently only read e-mails from this mailing list at
> weekends. Happily, this means I can read swathes of them in rapid
> succession, and so it struck me that Akiko Nakata's essay on Transparent
> Things seemed to reinforce Tori Alexander's assertion above.
Specifically,
> Alexander Chernyshevsky's reflection on the afterlife (strictly the lack
> thereof) on his deathbed seems a perfect example of a person attempting to
> prove his point with evidence and getting it very wrong indeed.
>
> I thought it...almost spooky.
>
> Yours,
> Nick.
>
> PS - For what it's worth, I'm enjoying the discussion on Pale Fire
> enormously, although I do wonder if I'm alone in finding comments like "A
> good argument needs evidence and positions that don't slide to new ground
> when challenged" from Professor Boyd a little...unworthy?
>
>
>
> VNA wrote:
> >I think Nabokov would argue that the supernatural, if it exists, would
be
> unlike anything any person could imagine, certainly >nothing anyone could
> "prove" with "evidence."
>
> Unhappily, I can currently only read e-mails from this mailing list at
> weekends. Happily, this means I can read swathes of them in rapid
> succession, and so it struck me that Akiko Nakata's essay on Transparent
> Things seemed to reinforce Tori Alexander's assertion above.
Specifically,
> Alexander Chernyshevsky's reflection on the afterlife (strictly the lack
> thereof) on his deathbed seems a perfect example of a person attempting to
> prove his point with evidence and getting it very wrong indeed.
>
> I thought it...almost spooky.
>
> Yours,
> Nick.
>
> PS - For what it's worth, I'm enjoying the discussion on Pale Fire
> enormously, although I do wonder if I'm alone in finding comments like "A
> good argument needs evidence and positions that don't slide to new ground
> when challenged" from Professor Boyd a little...unworthy?
>
>
>