Print

Print


"Jerome S. Colburn" wrote:
>
> On Fri, 5 Nov 1999, L. Gerholz wrote:
>
> > "Thomas R. Wier" wrote:
> > >
> > > How do you justify that for which the very idea of "justification"
> > > makes no sense?  Does it makes sense to "justify" the Mona Lisa,
> > > or the Sistine Chapel? After the fact, maybe (in this line of thinking:
> >
> > Careful about using examples like the Sistine Chapel in this argument.
> > That, AFAIK, was done on a commission from the Church. What was the
> > Church's justification? They didn't need one, they had the money.
>
> The greater glory of God, of course!
>

Well, yes. But I was trying to point out that for this argument the
Church's reason was irrelevant with respect to the argument because they
were backing it up with money. If Michealangelo had undertaken the
project on his own (suppose for the moment that he was independently
wealthy), I think he would have been required to provide said
justification. At which point *he* could have said "the greater glory of
God".

Laurie
[log in to unmask]
http://www.winternet.com/~milo
--
"Being bright does not grant an immunity to doing idiotic
things; more like, it just enlarges the possible scope."
     -- Lois McMaster Bujold