The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 11.0164  Tuesday, 25 January 2000.

[1]     From:   Patrick Dolan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 24 Jan 2000 10:58:26 -0600
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0151 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility

[2]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Monday, 24 Jan 2000 08:59:57 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 11.0151 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Patrick Dolan <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Monday, 24 Jan 2000 10:58:26 -0600
Subject: 11.0151 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility
Comment:        Re: SHK 11.0151 Re: Marx, Religion, and Nobility

>This makes all such lenses equal, which seems to be the claim that
>Marx's dictum at least appears to be avoiding.  Moreover, the fact that
>spiritual nature is unchanged strikes me as a more modest suggestion
>than that class struggle is the basis of all human social reality, and
>on par with the (widely accepted) notion that the materiality of the
>material is continuous.

It strikes me that the claim that human spiritual nature is continuous
(rather than "the same," the weaker formulation is closer to what I
believe) is either tautological, arising from one's definition of human
or a matter of faith. In neither case do I suppose that it's at all
"modest" to claim that all humans who have ever been or could ever be
have the same, a similar or a continuous spiritual nature. It's even
less modest when you start defining that spiritual nature as precisely
as any religion worth the name must define it. As a Buddhist, for
example, I don't believe that human beings possess the kind of spiritual
nature that yearns for God. When I was a young Catholic boy at Brebeuf
Jesuit in Indianapolis, I believed precisely that. If I were reading an
explication of Shakespeare that depended on my belief in such a yearning
(rather than his) I'd probably go read something else. I wouldn't waste
my time trying to falsify the premise.

I think the notion that of "class struggle" is slightly more
falsifialbe. After all, if you're careful, you can cash it out as an
empirical claim. I happen to think that when you do so, you find
that