Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: October ::
Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.2107  Friday, 31 October 2003

[1]     From:   Thomas Larque <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 30 Oct 2003 14:01:56 -0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.2101 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

[2]     From:   Mari Bonomi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 30 Oct 2003 10:46:02 -0500
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.2101 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

[3]     From:   Clifford Stetner <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Thursday, 30 Oct 2003 13:41:54 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.2035 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

[4]     From:   Takashi Kozuka <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Friday, 31 Oct 2003 11:21:36 0000
        Subj:   Re: SHK 14.2101 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Thomas Larque <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 30 Oct 2003 14:01:56 -0000
Subject: 14.2101 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2101 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

>Thomas Larque writes a tome on Bill Arnold

... and once again Bill Arnold writes a tome without confronting any of
the major errors in his previous postings, which together make his
theory collapse comprehensively, and without any attempt to advance the
debate or deal with real Renaissance sources rather than Arnold's
assumptions about what they must say (if only he could get around to
reading them!).

I say again, a theory that is based entirely on false statements and
obvious misreadings is a false theory.  Arnold is free to try to defend
the many (inaccurate) factual statements on which his theory rests from
the many and detailed rebuttals that he has received.  He should either
respond to these rebuttals by quoting and analysing Shakespeare and
other Renaissance sources in a way that shows his opponents to be quite
wrong and his own statements of supposed fact to be accurate, or he
should stop repeating claims based on these false statements of supposed
facts, since claims without supporting evidence are worthless and
pointless.

It doesn't surprise me that Arnold is a journalist rather than a student
or scholar.  Although a person's job is no indicator of their ability to
put forward workable academic theories, the most shallow form of
journalism involves writing stories that sound good but are not
necessarily accurate because the journalist simply does not have time to
do detailed research, and is basing everything on gut instinct and his
own personal beliefs and prejudices.  Arnold's "ghost"/"spirit" theory
clearly falls within this category.  He might get away with publishing
it in the middle of a small local newspaper read by people who know
nothing much about Shakespeare or the Renaissance, but it certainly
doesn't stand up in a scholarly list read by Shakespearean and
Renaissance enthusiasts.

Unless Arnold is willing to defend his supposedly scholarly claims using
the standards of scholarly debate (that is, by producing evidence from
Renaissance sources to support his own point of view, in answer to
rebuttals that produced evidence from Renaissance sources against it)
then his claims certainly are not scholarly and they do not belong on a
scholarly list.

All historical claims depend upon reading written sources to establish
what those in past generations actually thought.  Bill Arnold tries to
dress his theory up in historical clothes - endlessly claiming that he
is looking at the play through the eyes of a Globe Groundling - but he
has made no effort at all to support any of his readings with the points
of view expressed in genuine Renaissance texts.  Pseudo-historical
theories of this kind are all very well for novel-writers, but not for
people who are criticising others for not understanding the true meaning
of a Renaissance author.

I see no real point in continuing a discussion that consists merely of
Arnold repeating endlessly that he is right, without producing any
evidence to support that view and without answering the critics who have
shown him to be comprehensively wrong.  If Arnold produces any more
factual statements supported by evidence, or at least by what Arnold
assumes to be evidence, then I will continue to answer these with
detailed citations from Shakespeare and other Renaissance sources.  If
he simply continues to post self-congratulatory nonsense claiming that
he's right because he's right because he's right because he's right,
then I will try to ignore him.

Thomas Larque.
"Shakespeare and His Critics"       "British Shakespeare Association"
http://shakespearean.org.uk           http://britishshakespeare.ws

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mari Bonomi <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 30 Oct 2003 10:46:02 -0500
Subject: 14.2101 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.2101 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

Journalist/tabloid author/Shakespeare reader Arnold is entitled to his
"humble opinion" about Shakespeare's "Christology" and even to his
hobbyhorse riding of what significance Shakespeare's choice of a
particular synonym signifies on religious and literary levels.

However, having presented these arguments ad nauseum, having denigrated
list members by speaking to them in diminutive (I have never seen Mr.
Larque refer to himself as "Tom" for instance), having to this point
been unable to point to a single primary source (beyond the KJB which is
a translation) to support his theories nor to refute the sources offered
by those who dismiss his assertions, having thrown in the Caspar the
Ghost red herring repeatedly even after it was quite well picked clean
of flesh by listmembers, Mr. Arnold needs to recognize that it is time
to lay down his tattered banners, pick up the bones of his red herring
for disposal, and amble off into the sunset, muttering whatever prayers
and/or imprecations he chooses -- under his breath, if possible.

The discussion long ago grew tedious. I am politely asking Bill Arnold
to bring it to an end.  I'm posting in this thread to remove the request
from the hotbed of contentious exchanges in the Hamlet thread; I'd like
to see that thread die and this one return to "The Theory of Knowledge."

Thank you in advance, Mr. Arnold.

Mari Bonomi

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Clifford Stetner <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Thursday, 30 Oct 2003 13:41:54 -0500
Subject: 14.2035 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2035 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

"I hate to be a wet blanket but since this thread started, I haven't
seen a single suggested instance that I find convincing as *knowledge*."

The question addressed by Gettier is derived from Plato who considers
the necessary and sufficient conditions for "knowledge" at Theatetus 201
and Meno 98. Gettier identifies attempts made in recent years by
Roderick Chisolm and A. J. Ayer to state such conditions as analogous to
knowledge = "justified true belief" which he symbolizes:

"(a) S knows that P IFF

(i) P is true.
(ii) S believes that P, and
(iii) S is justified in believing that P."

He then offers two examples in which these conditions hold, but P does
not qualify as "knowledge." In both cases P has only a portion of the
relevant evidence and manages "justifiably" to draw a true conclusion
from it. In the first case, S concludes that the P: person with ten
coins in his pocket will get job, and in the second case, that, because
one P is true, a set of either P/or a random P2 is also true. The
first, I think, represents inductive inferences and the second deductive
sylogisms. In the first case, Gettier proposes that if an incomplete
knowledge of the conditions leads S to conclude that S2 will get the
job, and he justifiably believes S2 has ten coins, and S doesn't know
that S will get the job and that S has ten coins, S will believe P. P
would be "justified true belief," but based on the false inference that
S2 gets job and clearly not knowledge. In the second case, P = if A then
A or B. S is convinced of A, but A is false. S, however, randomly
chances on a true B, so the proposition "either A or B" remains true.
The deduction is justified, the P is true, S believes it, but P is not
knowledge.

In my Comedy of Errors example, P is the supposed name of the twin from
Syracuse and S is the citizens of Ephesus of whom A of Syracuse says:
"...every one doth call me by my name."

ANGELO        Master Antipholus,--
ANTIPHOLUS OF SYRACUSE          Ay, that's my name.
ANGELO        I know it well, sir...

Plato et al. would agree; Gettier would not.

Here are two more that both take place in Gettier gardens. The first is
a pure Gettier case, the second is slightly flawed:

1) Benedick and Beatrice believe the other loves them madly because
their friends stage dialogues to that effect, pretending not to know
they are being overheard. Even the friends think it's "no such matter,"
but in fact they do love each other, and each harbors a justified true
belief concerning the other. Although Benedick is justified in believing
Beatrice loves him after overhearing the conversation of Pedro, Claudio,
and Leonato, and although Beatrice does love him, according to Gettier,
what he supposes to be "knowledge" of the fact of her love is no such
matter.

2) Malvolio believes the letter has been dropped for him to find. This
belief is true. The reference to yellow socks and cross garters could
scarcely lead to any other conclusion. The belief is therefore
justified. But there is clearly little knowledge involved which is
demonstrated by the false beliefs it syllogistically implies. This looks
like just a misreading of evidence, but Gettier is concerned with the
status of Malvolio's belief vis a vis the epistemological conditions for
knowledge.

Regardless of Malvolio, Benedick is a perfect Gettier case. Shakespeare
was not thinking of Gettier when he constructed these treacherous
gardens, but he was clearly thinking of epistemology, as the tendency of
his characters to talk to themselves there gives us blow by blow
descriptions of their flawed reasoning.

Clifford Stetner
CUNY

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Takashi Kozuka <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Friday, 31 Oct 2003 11:21:36 0000
Subject: 14.2101 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge
Comment:        Re: SHK 14.2101 Shakespeare and the Theory of Knowledge

Can we drop this newly born thread about 'viz.'/viz' (unless one wants
to examine Shakespeare's own use of Latin, etc.) because so far this
thread has nothing to do with Shakespeare? By doing so, not only can we
spend more time and thought on other threads, but we can also save
Hardy's time. Those who want to discuss it can do so off-list, keeping
in mind that in the UK '.' is often (but not always) omitted when a word
is abbreviated (I believe that this is why Ros -- perhaps unconsciously?
-- s

Happy Halloween from the UK (where the final series of Buffy is now
showing on BBC2),
Takashi

_______________________________________________________________
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.