Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2001 :: June ::
Re: Why Shakespeare Conflicts
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.1655  Friday, 29 June 2001

[1]     From:   Don Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Jun 2001 09:46:36 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1632 Re: Why Shakespeare Conflicts

[2]     From:   Melissa D. Aaron <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 28 Jun 2001 15:27:30 -0700
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.1650 Re: Why Shakespeare Conflicts


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Don Bloom <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 28 Jun 2001 09:46:36 -0500
Subject: 12.1632 Re: Why Shakespeare Conflicts
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1632 Re: Why Shakespeare Conflicts

Now wyte just a blinkin minnit.

Sean responds to Takashi responding to Sam and says,

>I've more or less avoided this whole debate, but I find it surprising
>that Don opens himself up for this sort of refutation.

Perhaps, the "Don" there was a slip of the keyboard for Sam, or a
reference to some other Don.

If not, all I have to say is that (1) I regularly open myself up for
refutation (but of course I'm always in the right), and (2) I have to
agree with much of what Sam said, though I might have avoided the
romantic generalizations.

I would be interested to know if someone (not from Sean, I think we're
in agreement) could point out a more universally admired and studied
author. I also wonder why people devote their lives to studying (and
performing) Shakespeare if not for those qualities that Sam listed in
his romantic generalizations.

It ain't for the fabulous salaries, I can guarantee you that.

Cheers,
don

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Melissa D. Aaron <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 28 Jun 2001 15:27:30 -0700
Subject: 12.1650 Re: Why Shakespeare Conflicts
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.1650 Re: Why Shakespeare Conflicts

Takashi Kozuka responds to Sean Lawrence:

>>Why should we
>>judge universality empirically?  Surely we don't survey all cultures
>>before deciding that simple math is universal, for instance, and both
>>science and philosophy make rather general claims without bothering >to
>>first build up a global consensus.
>
>It is a *false analogy* to compare Sam's statement (there is "a literary
>tract that will translate to ANY culture on the planet and will be
>INSTANTLY understood" (emphasis added)) with math, science or
>philosophy. (I'm sorry that I don't have time to examine the fallacy
>more closely.) My point is simple: Sam's statement neglects cultural
>differences.

Umm, maybe I'm missing something here, but aren't science and philosophy
also reflective of cultural differences?

I am reaching back to high school mathematics here, but I think that
math--or at least geometry, so close to Greek philosophy anyhow--begins
with a set of postulates, and so does philosophy, theology, science,
etc.--in other words, some basic things have to be accepted and not
examined before going further because otherwise going further is
impossible.  This is not unrelated to the question elsewhere on the list
about what constitutes sufficient evidence.  I don't know about
everybody else, but my work usually is modelled on an IF-THEN sentence:
IF you will grant me X, Y, and Z, AND A, B, C are true, THEN  D, E, and
F logically follow.  IF you don't grant me X Y and Z, then you depart
the bus in peace long before you discover that you are on your way to
Daytona Beach, FL.

There is, as Touchstone say, much virtue in IF, and I'm not sure
literary studies and the hard science differ very much in needing to
begin with IF.

Apologies if I have misunderstood or accidentally derailed the thread.

MDA

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.