Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2002 :: September ::
Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 13.1938  Friday, 20 September 2002

[1]     From:   R. Schmeeckle <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 08:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1901 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

[2]     From:   R. Schmeeckle <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 09:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
        Subj:   The Supernatural and Modernity

[3]     From:   W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 12:55:00 -0400
        Subj:   Re: SHK 13.1924 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R. Schmeeckle <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 08:39:31 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: 13.1901 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1901 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

>From:           John Drakakis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
>Date:           Friday, 13 Sep 2002 15:27:28 +0100

>I had no idea that you were being ironical! For once we are in agreement
>on the fact that there are no universals. BUT that does not necessarily
>mean that everything is relative.
>
>Have I opened up another can of worms here?

Yes.  There are no universals leads to a contradiction, since it is in
the form of a universal.

One can try to get out of the can (of worms) by claiming that the law of
contradiction is not universal, another universal.

Roger Schmeeckle

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           R. Schmeeckle <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 09:03:39 -0700 (PDT)
Subject:        The Supernatural and Modernity

>From:           M. Yawney <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
>Date:           Wednesday, 18 Sep 2002 16:07:31 -0700 (PDT)

>The Catholic church at least teaches that if one does not confess to
>civil authorities and accept secular consequences and (even more
>importantly) if one continues to enjoy the positive results of one's
>crime, these are indications that one's repentance are not
>sincere--which means you can confess to a priest until you are blue in
>the face, but the forgiveness gives will not apply since it is accepted
>in bad faith.

This point, made on a different thread, explains why Claudius cannot
sincerely pray.  He is enjoying the fruits of his sinful murder by his
liason with the widowed queen, and, to be forgiven, he would have to
give her up.  Knowing that, he realizes his prayer is futile.  But
Hamlet does not know that; on the assumption that Claudius is sincerely
repenting, Hamlet does not kill him, lest he be saved in his state of
repentance.  In wishing Claudius to go to hell, Hamlet commits the most
serious sin against charity, regardless of Claudius' guilt and Hamlet's
concern to avenge it.  At this point in the play, Hamlet is, indeed, a
noble mind o'erthrown.  But the play is not over.

Roger Schmeeckle

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           W. L. Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 19 Sep 2002 12:55:00 -0400
Subject: 13.1924 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity
Comment:        Re: SHK 13.1924 Re: The Supernatural and Modernity

>>The odd thing about the Theory of Special Relativity is that the one
>>thing in the cosmos that is not relative to anything is the speed of
>>light

I now see the light, but I did say "thing" in the cosmos.  See Mordehai
Milgrom's essay on "dark matter" in Scientific American (August 2002).
Is it possible that the universe is only 5 percent complete?

Yours,
Bill Godshalk

_______________________________________________________________
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 Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the
editor assumes no responsibility for them.
 

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.