From the Mail: Keezer on Pascal
Bill Keezer writes:
Thank you very much for your kind post on my gambling response. I scanned the reference you gave to Pascal's divertissement and found him to be rather dour. His observations are valid but not universally. If one only had his stated motives for diversion, diversion would indeed be a futile or at least undesirable activity.
I really enjoyed the exchange between you and Lee on the justification of the Iraq War. I consider it the epitome of civil discussion. I have corresponded with Lee and read his postings daily. He is a very thoughtful man. I once asked him if he were a Lutheran minister, and he said no, he was just a layman with a strong interest in religious thought. I made it a practice to periodically visit your Independent Philosopher blog until you started the Maverick Philosopher. That blog I read daily. It has a tremendous vitality to it.
Thanks for writing, Bill. I concur with your judgement about Lee over at Verbum Ipsum. And thanks for your kind remarks about my blog. It is interesting how wildly divergent people's perceptions are. Some guy e-mailed me to tell me that my blog is "effete and boring." Apparently, despite its being boring, it rankled him enough to fire up his e-mail utility. The same guy months before shouted that my blog was a PSEUDO BLOG!! because it doesn't allow comments. When I calmly pointed out to him that there is nothing in the definition of 'weblog' to require activation of the Comments feature, he went ballistic. I am reminded that when Aristotle referred to man as a rational animal, he was talking about a capacity -- one activated only in some.