7 ms·
It only works that way up to a point. That point is when the private stuff is either illegal or is directly relevant to the work, as in this case. #metoo anyone
by aklemm 8y ago
It only works that way up to a point. That point is when the private stuff is either illegal or is directly relevant to the work, as in this case. #metoo anyone?
- bauerd 8y agoPlease elaborate how his divorce is either illegal or directly relevant to his writing
- aklemm 8y agoCharacter is a theme (and title!) of many of his writings. Ending an avowed life-time commitment in the circumstances around the way he did it brings that into question. We should all be questioning it, even if we're free to come to different conclusions.
- gkya 8y ago> an avowed life-time commitment That's everything what modern marriage today isn't. That's basically a religious view of marriage, which can freely exist, but has no legal binding at all, and whether divorce is ethical or not for one or some religions/"philosophies" is not necessarily universal.
- aklemm 8y agoIf that were the case, no one would bother with marriage. It would be completely meaningless. This is an incredibly naive view. The relevant question is not whether it's legal nor what one's religion has to say on the matter. The question is whether he showed character, and we can evaluate that by whether he lived up to his word and--especially--by how his wife took it.
- gkya 8y agoSorry but BS. Marriage is an economical (oiko- in oikonomia---the Greek word that is the etymological origin of economy---means family/home), legal and religious phenomenon. In modern societies the accent is on the first two, and we separate the legal meaning of it from its religious one; the former being an official bond regarding two person and their children, which governs how responsibilities, goods and resources belonging to a family core are parted and used among those individuals. That's the big part of why people bother with marriage (or things like civil unions) even if they are not religious. Regardless, "living up to one's words" means nothing regarding the validity of a statement. I can say 1 + 1 = 1, but then in my private life behave as if it was 2; that does not affect the truth of the former statement.
- mnm1 8y agoSo marrying someone younger than you is now equivalent to rape?
- aklemm 8y agoYou're being disingenuous to claim I inferred that.
- gkya 8y agoHow? You referenced #metoo, which is a movement in which people that have sufferent sexual attacks in various forms "come out" publicly. I can easily see how the gp comment interpreted that that way.
- aklemm 8y agoThe context of that conversation is about whether one's private life should affect how we take one's work. #metoo is an excellent reference in that case.
- dragonwriter 8y ago> The context of that conversation is about whether one's private life should affect how we take one's work. #metoo is an excellent reference in that case. No, it's not; sexual assault and harassment are part of working life and/or public offenses, not “private life”.
- gkya 8y agoSexual assault and harassment can also happen in a marriage, as it is a question of whether some person acts according to the consent or refusal of other(s). Still, divorce and a second marriage is neither sexual assault nor sexual harassment; and age difference among partners alone---as long as all the parties' ages are within legal consensual limits---is not a proof of sexual agression or illegality of the relation, so, nothing to do with #metoo here, regardless of it being priavate or public. Edit: Not contesting you, btw; just correcting a misinformation.