Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2007 :: December ::
Presentism
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0834  Thursday, 13 December 2007

[1] 	From:	William Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date:	Tuesday, 11 Dec 2007 16:26:11 -0500
	Subj:	Re: SHK 18.0829 Presentism

[2] 	From:	Hugh Grady <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date:	Tuesday, 11 Dec 2007 20:33:10 -0500
	Subj:	RE: SHK 18.0829 Presentism

[3] 	From:	Joseph Egert <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
	Date:	Wednesday, 12 Dec 2007 15:06:31 -0800 (PST)	
	Subj:	Re: SHK 18.0829 Presentism


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		William Godshalk <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:		Tuesday, 11 Dec 2007 16:26:11 -0500
Subject: 18.0829 Presentism
Comment:	Re: SHK 18.0829 Presentism

Perhaps we can all agree to cease the present debate, and to read and/or 
reread Montaigne's Apology for Raymond Sebonde (circa 1569), an essay on 
skepticism that Shakespeare apparently read and then used in King Lear. 
We will then have something concrete to discuss -- something at least 
tangentially concerning Shakespeare's skepticism.

Bill

[2]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Hugh Grady <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:		Tuesday, 11 Dec 2007 20:33:10 -0500
Subject: 18.0829 Presentism
Comment:	RE: SHK 18.0829 Presentism

IN re R. A. Cantrell's latest offering:

 >That is, we believe that we
 >know nothing for sure.

This is a perfect example of the idiocy of skepticism. Now that we are 
all "sure" that we know nothing for sure, we may as well just get on 
with things as best we may, and bye the bye, we might be just as well 
off not to have bothered discussing whether we know anything for sure or 
not. World without end. The purpose in the deployment of the tropes is 
to stultify one's adversary ( bring them to epoche, aporia, or whatever) 
and once they are silenced, continue to shout whatever inane crap you 
wish to shout but could not shout if anyone demanded that you make a 
substantive counter-case to that which you have shouted down by 
perpetually yakking about whether or not we, you him, or it can know 
anything for "sure."

Let's see: "idiocy," "as well off not to have bothered discussing," "The 
purpose in the deployment of the tropes is to stultify one's 
adversary"-all of this is contentless blustering that does nothing 
toward advancing the discussion beyond whatever relief the writer gets 
from blowing off the hot air. And might I suggest that one paragraph on 
epistemology is not likely to be very illuminating in the first place?

The discussion has become absurd. My heartfelt sympathy to John Drakakis 
for bootlessly trying to keep the discussion honest.

Merry Christmas to all,
Hugh Grady

[3]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:		Joseph Egert <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
 >
Date:		Wednesday, 12 Dec 2007 15:06:31 -0800 (PST)	
Subject: 18.0829 Presentism
Comment:	Re: SHK 18.0829 Presentism

 >Ah, if only the 'truth' were that simple Joe!
 >
 >Textual editing doesn't, I'm afraid get us to
 >the unvarnished 'truth,
 >although it can help to cut down the margins
 >of palpable error.

JE: But John, will Terence Hawkes admit your editing helps to "cut down 
the margins of palpable error"? Doesn't his defeatist theory deny even 
that possibility? Remember: "to seek, 'the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, despite our limitations' is absurdly 
self-destructive." And why, John, do you surround "truth" with scare 
quotes and leave error naked and undefended? Don't you see the blatant 
inconsistency here?

In any event, I agree with you that your editing efforts are not wasted.

Welcome aboard!
Joe Egert


_______________________________________________________________
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.