| Revision as of 21:34, 19 July 2007 editNick Graves (talk | contribs)4,593 editsm →Response concerning Vonnegut's atheism: fix← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:41, 22 July 2007 edit undoFoxsux (talk | contribs)31 edits →Response concerning Vonnegut's atheismNext edit → | ||
| Line 65: | Line 65: | ||
| Finally, there is the matter of Vonnegut's organizational affiliations, which belies the allegations about his latter-day conversion to God-belief. Until his death, Vonnegut was the honorary president of the American Humanist Association (AHA), an organization that promotes a naturalistic and nontheistic lifestance (humanism), and whose members consider themselves atheists or agnostics. He was also a member of the Council for Secular Humanism's International Academy of Humanism, which promotes the same naturalistic, nontheistic lifestance as AHA. If Vonnegut had really renounced his atheism and become a God-believer, he most probably would have ended his affiliation with these organizations. His continued membership and prominent roles in these organizations is a strong testament to his continued atheism. ] 21:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC) | Finally, there is the matter of Vonnegut's organizational affiliations, which belies the allegations about his latter-day conversion to God-belief. Until his death, Vonnegut was the honorary president of the American Humanist Association (AHA), an organization that promotes a naturalistic and nontheistic lifestance (humanism), and whose members consider themselves atheists or agnostics. He was also a member of the Council for Secular Humanism's International Academy of Humanism, which promotes the same naturalistic, nontheistic lifestance as AHA. If Vonnegut had really renounced his atheism and become a God-believer, he most probably would have ended his affiliation with these organizations. His continued membership and prominent roles in these organizations is a strong testament to his continued atheism. ] 21:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC) | ||
| "overly literal and naive interpretation" | |||
| real civil. and people wonder why I don't like using discussion.] 21:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:41, 22 July 2007
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kurt Vonnegut article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4 |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||
 Archives |
One of Seven American Survivors?
In the entry, it says he was one of only seven or eight American survivors of the Dresden bombings, but I haven't found this in any sources. In Slaughterhouse-Five (which is I know is not non-fiction, but is still autobiographical), he says he and a hundred American soldiers survived the bombings. - Jeremy Peter Green 23:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Characters named after real scientists
Vonnegut characters are in general named after real scientists who contributed to sciences like atmospheric science, rockets or space travel. See external link http://groups.google.com/group/alt.books.kurt-vonnegut/browse_thread/thread/25bfa6bbace249e7/e1e07e1494ce93ad?lnk=st&q=the+vonnegut+file&rnum=1&hl=en#e1e07e1494ce93ad. Or just go to google groups and search for "The Vonnegut File"
I would like to frivolously add that one of the scientists is George Springer, used in the short story about a band leader. In real life, Springer was the author of a very good book on Riemann Integrals. Most card catalogs do not include this book, but instead they list George H Springer, author of a book on care and maintenance of band instruments.
If you are an NFL football fan, former Browns quarterback Frank Ryan wrote his PhD thesis on this subject - elliptical Riemann Integrals of the second and third kind. Frizb 18:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Recurring themes?
It might be wise to list several recurring themes in his books -- most importantly, the recounting of his son's death through decapitation in Sweden after desertion from Vietnam.
Kundera
I mentioned this at Milan Kundera's page, but I do hope that there can be work done on the two articles to show some kind of comparison in themes and style. I won't be working on this for a few weeks, but perhaps someday I'll get back to it. Tdfriese 06:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
reason for change
If I should ever die, God forbid, let this be my epitaph: THE ONLY PROOF HE NEEDED FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD WAS MUSIC
"Vonnegut's Blues For America" Sunday Herald (7 January 2006)
Response concerning Vonnegut's atheism
Using this source to conclude that Vonnegut sincerely believed in a God, and was therefore not an atheist is, I believe, based on an an overly literal and naive interpretation of the Blues for America essay, and illustrative of one of the pitfalls of interpreting primary sources without examining the context provided by other sources. Vonnegut's self-identification as an atheist, humanist and freethinker is substantiated by many quotes and secondary sources throughout his career, and this single figurative paragraph from an essay is hardly indicitive of some sort of dramatic turnaround and embracement of theism.
From the context of this essay alone, it's clear that Vonnegut is not presenting a serious proof of the existence of God, but is making a comment about how much he appreciates music. The paragraphs immediately preceding and following the imaginary epitaph show that the greatness of music is his topic. The epitaph is a literary device used to express his point about music, not a sincere profession of belief in God. Later in this same essay Vonnegut says "And by the grace of God, or whatever, I am not an alcoholic..." The flippant addition of the or whatever shows that Vonnegut speaks of "God" figuratively, but does not commit himself to genuine belief in God.
Vonnegut was a Unitarian (or more specifically, a Unitarian Universalist, or UU). Anyone familiar with UUs will know that many of them are accustomed to using theistic language symbolically, without themselves being theists. In such cases, the word "God" is taken not to represent a supernatural being as it is in theistic worldviews, but some abstraction, such as supreme goodness, or harmony with nature or humanity, love, or any number of other ideals. As a member of several UU congregations, I have witnessed many members who identified themselves as atheists who nevertheless spoke of "growing into harmony with the Divine," or who wholeheartedly sang songs about God. Speaking of "God," yet being nontheistic in outlook, is a common phenomenon among UUs, and one must be very cautious about assuming what a UU believes based on the theistic language they might use.
Vonnegut has a long history of using theistic language, even as he identified himself as an atheist, humanist or freethinker. Take this excerpt from a commencement speech, for example: "You have just heard an atheist thank God not once, but twice. And listen to this: God bless the class of 1974." Clearly, Vonnegut was prone to speaking of God as if he actually believed in him, even though he identified himself as an atheist.
The phrase "f I should ever die, God forbid" in the Blues for America essay is a word-for-word recycling of a phrase he used in an address to members of the American Humanist Association for a memorial service for fellow humanist Isaac Asimov--an address of which he spoke in his latest book, A Man Without a Country:
- “We had a memorial service for Isaac a few years back, and I spoke and said at one point, ‘Isaac is up in heaven now.’ It was the funniest thing I could have said to an audience of humanists. I rolled them in the aisles. It was several minutes before order could be restored. And if I should ever die, God forbid, I hope you will say, ‘Kurt is up in heaven now.’ That’s my favorite joke.”
Why was this statement of Vonnegut's so funny to himself and his audience? It is because, as humanists, they do not believe in an afterlife, or in a God who sends people to heaven. When Vonnegut speaks of heaven or God, he does so with a wink. He speaks of God figuratively, ironically, or for humorous effect.
Here's another example, spoken by Vonnegut during an appearance on The Daily Show in support of his book A Man Without a Country (the same book from which the Blues for America essay was excerpted):
- "I do feel that evolution is being controlled by some sort of divine engineer. I can't help thinking that. And this engineer knows exactly what he or she is doing and why, and where evolution is headed. That's why we've got giraffes and hippopotami and the clap."
That last example of divine engineering ("the clap") shows that Vonnegut's "endorsement" for intelligent design is only tongue-in-cheek. Vonnegut does not really believe there is some sort of intelligent, benevolent Creator guiding evolution, and his humorous mention of this noxious organism shows it.
Finally, there is the matter of Vonnegut's organizational affiliations, which belies the allegations about his latter-day conversion to God-belief. Until his death, Vonnegut was the honorary president of the American Humanist Association (AHA), an organization that promotes a naturalistic and nontheistic lifestance (humanism), and whose members consider themselves atheists or agnostics. He was also a member of the Council for Secular Humanism's International Academy of Humanism, which promotes the same naturalistic, nontheistic lifestance as AHA. If Vonnegut had really renounced his atheism and become a God-believer, he most probably would have ended his affiliation with these organizations. His continued membership and prominent roles in these organizations is a strong testament to his continued atheism. Nick Graves 21:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
"overly literal and naive interpretation"
real civil. and people wonder why I don't like using discussion.Foxsux 21:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Categories: