Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bb
Forgive my misunderstanding. To me, there is a vast difference between saying "human beings are by nature good" and they are "innocent", which is again different from saying "morally neutral."
|
Yeah - I wasn't clear there. The first statement was my understanding of how Pullman sees things ('Pullman clearly believes ..'), the second was my personal interpretation of the character's behaviour ('I'd say..').
My reason for saying that Pullman believes human beings are essentially good is that he believes that once 'liberated' from the Church they will be able to create a perfect world (the Republic of Heaven). They are ignorant but in essence have the capacity to create Heaven on earth.
Quote:
|
Point is, in Pullman's world people are born morally 'neutral' (ie 'unfalllen') & have to discover for themselves what is Good & what is Bad. But first they have to liberate themselves from the 'superstition' of religious belief, because in Pullman's view all religion is corrupting.
|
Is again my
interpretation of the work. My feeling is that Pullman believes that there is a core of good in each being which must be 'awakened', whereas in my reading of the work they are morally neutral - which is one reason why I am not convinced by his conclusion. I see nothing in the story to make be believe that any of the characters have the capacity to create a perfect world. Pullman clearly does.