I'm reminded, of course, of the marvellous, sad, warm, funny, heartbreaking article Richard Dawkins wrote on the occasion of Douglas Adams' death. But then, I so frequently am, whenever I hear of anyone expressing either surprise at how scientifically literate and philosophically astute Adams was (or for that matter, claiming that Dawkins has no soul).
(I'm sure there's a cheap shot about atheism somewhere in there, along the lines that Dawkins indeed has no soul and neither does anyone else...)
I wasn't really intending to express surprise that Adams was philosophically astute. I've lost count of the number of times I've quoted from Hitch-Hiker because it contains an eloquent passage making exactly the point I wanted in some discussion (and, as an added bonus, is funny in the process). I was more surprised that in this particular case his influence on my thinking appears to have been subtle and subconscious, whereas usually I know it's happening.
I was using soul in the non-technical sense, as well you know.
No, I wasn't suggesting that you were surprised that Adams was a philosopher at heart - but I've certainly heard his books dismissed as 'funny science fiction stuff' by people who simply missed the point.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/may/14/books.booksnews
I wasn't really intending to express surprise that Adams was philosophically astute. I've lost count of the number of times I've quoted from Hitch-Hiker because it contains an eloquent passage making exactly the point I wanted in some discussion (and, as an added bonus, is funny in the process). I was more surprised that in this particular case his influence on my thinking appears to have been subtle and subconscious, whereas usually I know it's happening.
No, I wasn't suggesting that you were surprised that Adams was a philosopher at heart - but I've certainly heard his books dismissed as 'funny science fiction stuff' by people who simply missed the point.