Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2003 :: September ::
Re: Tillyard (Again)
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 14.1726  Wednesday, 3 September 2003

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 2 Sep 2003 12:12:46 -0700
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.1712 Re: Tillyard (Again)

[2]     From:   Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
        Date:   Tuesday, 2 Sep 2003 22:13:38 +0100
        Subj:   RE: SHK 14.1712 Re: Tillyard (Again)


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 2 Sep 2003 12:12:46 -0700
Subject: 14.1712 Re: Tillyard (Again)
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.1712 Re: Tillyard (Again)

I enjoyed Clifford Stetner's latest post about indirect responsibility.
I'm a little puzzled by this line, though:

>Since capitalism, like communism is a product of historical dialectics
>and not the invention of Adam Smith, I don't know whom (perhaps our bard
>again?) to blame for the countless dead in Iraq?

Surely this is to cast the blame so broadly that it's dissipated.
Blaming history strikes me too much as the stock defense of war
criminals.

Yours,
Sean.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Marcus Dahl <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:           Tuesday, 2 Sep 2003 22:13:38 +0100
Subject: 14.1712 Re: Tillyard (Again)
Comment:        RE: SHK 14.1712 Re: Tillyard (Again)

Dear Clifford,

No this logic does not.

For the obvious reason as Aristotle and every other serious aesthetic
philosopher ever after has realised.

Art is not didactic.

Moral theory and political theory (particularly of the sort created by
Marx's less able followers) is.

Another way of putting it: though Newton attempted to describe the
nature of what is the case (as, it may be argued, did Shakespeare and
many other high artists) he did not attempt to tell people what to do
with the nature of what is the case as did Marx(by implication) and his
followers (by direct action e.g. my list of suspect 'Marxian'
followers).

Another point. My by-line in the last missive was an admittedly not very
good joke in the direction of my feeling on this - that Shakespeare was
very much in the tradition of Rabelais and Montaigne - moral but not a
moralist - artistic but not aesthete - or perhaps I have been reading
too much Bakhtin.

aint' nothin right or wrong but thinkin makes it so

Best,
Marcus Whatever happened to Huysman Dahl

_______________________________________________________________
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.