A Religious Poem of Depravity and Fissure : Pragmatism, Experimentalism, and neo-Pyrrhonic Skepticism in Paradaise Lost

拉斐尔关于天文学的告诫与叙述者对地心和日心理论的精湛知识相平衡。他相互矛盾的态度来自两个不同的来源：圣经中的实用主义将我们的注意力引导到上帝身上，并坚持我们的日常行为和传统的宗教道德，以及17世纪的实验主义，通过它我们将比以往任何时候都更欣赏造物主的天才的灵巧。文艺复兴时期的科学家试图澄清关于宇宙学的事实和虚构之间的界限，因此实用主义者对上帝创造的作品的理解是多么肤浅。在这两方面中选择一方，是十七世纪亟待解决的问题。叙述者鼓励读者盲目相信上帝的命令，取消后者，认为这是一种亵渎神明的态度。但叙述者在整首诗中提到了几个超出常人常识的奇迹，表明了他对这些实验者的一些发现的浓厚兴趣和赞许。传统的和新的方法来欣赏上帝的创造，使他内在连贯的态度陷入波动。但这种摇摆只是我们的一个表面问题。这里重要的是他内心深处的确信，他能够拥有每一种现象，甚至是最奇妙的事件，作为一种被描述为上帝创造的对象。他被认定为一名真正的作家，因为他在《圣经》的背景下进行了解释，这证明了他没有新皮尔逊式的怀疑论，即即使是实验科学也是假想的人类发明，留下了很大的怀疑和怀疑空间。这位诗人的前辈们都持怀疑态度。事实上，上帝的创造力具有生成的多样性，打破了叙述者对“神奇的占有”的盲目信任的语义封闭，把我们扔进了“怀疑的无边无际的海洋”。

Raphael's admonition about astronomy is counterbalanced with the narrator's superb knowledge of both geocentric and heliocentric theories. His conflicting attitudes are derived from two different sources : the Biblical pragmatism to direct our attention on God with adherence to our daily behavior with traditional religious morality, and the seventeenth-century experimentalism to search for wonders in the universe through which we will appreciate dexterities of the Creator's genius more than ever. The Renaissance scientists tried to make clear the boundaries between facts and fiction about cosmography, and consequently how superficially the pragmatists grasp the works of God's creation. Taking one of these two sides is a pressing question to be solved in the seventeenth century. The narrator encourages the readers to blindly trust God's order and cancel the latter as a sacrilegious attitude. But the narrator, with referring to several wonders beyond common knowledge throughout the poem, exposes his keen interest and approval for a number of discoveries by those experimentalists. The traditional and the new approaches to appreciate God's creation plunges his intrinsically coherent attitude to fluctuating. But the wobbling is a superficial problem with us. What matters here is his inner deep assurance that he is able to possess every phenomenon, even a most wondrous event, as an object to be described as a God's creation. A conviction of his qualification as an authentic writer for explaining within the Biblical context, proves his lack of a neo-Pyrrhonic skepticism that even experimental science is a hypothetical human invention with leaving much room for doubt and incredulity. Such an absence of skepticism is shared by the poet's predecessors. In fact, God's creativity with generative multiplicity explodes semantic closure of the narrator's blind trust in "marvelous possession" and throws us into the "doubt's boundless sea."