Pointless argumentative thread alert

[The Mutt]

That wasn't my question... if you would like me to rephrase it for you, so it is more clear whether my question was about philosophy or alcoholism, by all means I can. Otherwise, I see you managed to not answer another one. I'll stop asking if you don't want to or cannot intelligently or politely answer any questions--no harm done

However, some rational counterpoints... The possibility that he was a good writer (as I never said hack) who didn't intend to write philosophy into what he did, intending instead to just write a really good story is not a stupid possibility--remarkably, that's the possibility I was talking about, not the one you proposed (straw man fallacy, again).

I ask "Did Shakespeare intend to write philosophy?" and you answer with "400 years of scholars say that he did". However, I have never heard that (and its possible that I don't hear everything, I admit) in any class where Shakespeare has been a topic; I have no scholars to reference.

Though I'm afraid you'll just make a joke and not answer the question (possibly because you actually don't have any answer), I'll bite... who is amongst the consensus? And, what of those who don't say it? What constitutes "He intended it", because obviously not all academic sources agree (I refer to my quoted paragraph a ways back)?

You do have a Shakespearian scholar to reference. Me. I say it. I'm right. And the 100 or so books I have read on the subject agree. Am I going to go look up some references for you because you totally clueless? No.

Now it is possible that you are so dense that you fail to understand how my parable of the alcoholic movies answers your question.
It is also possible that you are being deliberately obtuse because you enjoy being annoying.
Either way, I've had enough of you.
Feel free to believe that I have bowed to your superior intellect and run away.
There is a toy poodle that barks at me whenever I walk past his house. I am sure he feels triumphant when he sees my back, too.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by The Mutt
You do have a Shakespearian scholor to reference. Me. I say it I'm right. And the 100 or so books I have read on the subject agree. Am I going to go look up some references for you because you totally clueless? No.

Now it is possible that you are so dense that you fail to understand how my parable of the alcoholic movies answers your question.
It is also possible that you are being deliberately obtuse because you enjoy being annoying.
Either way, I've had enough of you.
Feel free to believe that I have bowed to your superior intellect and run away.
There is a toy poodle that barks at me whenever I walk past his house. I am sure he feels triumphant when he sees my back, too.

So... in summation... you're position is right because you're an authority on it and you can name no real references that constitute the "consensus", but we should just go on faith that scholars for 400 years have been saying that Shakespeare was intending to write philosophy the whole time.

On your say so.

...because you're a Shakespeare scholar.

...also, because you say so.

I see.

And you answer a direct question with a vague analogy--which I asked for clarification about because I hadn't heard of one of the movies and I'd much have preferred a direct answer--then proceed to believe that people are "dense" because they don't quite get it.

And you blamed me for your thinking that I meant to talk down to people... and you pull that shit?

And now you quit because "you've had enough of me"?

Wow. Well, bye, I guess. I tried.

 

[poohlive]

Whoah... whoah... whoah.
You guys are really arguing the intent of Shakespeare? Come on, I don't think we can do that. Hell, some people don't even think Shakespeare existed.
I wanted to screw Joe with quotes of my own where people took Shakespeare's stuff as philosophically inclicned, and found a couple of good places (but nothing that really said anything more than what both Joe and I put together, good writer, used philosophy, nothing more) but one of the things I kept picking up was that Shakespeare might not have existed at all, but this real life philosopher, used the name and made up the stories himself.
No one has ever agreed on anything with Shakespeare. You show me a study that says he was a philosopher, I'll show you one that says he didn't exist.
I know what you are saying Mutt. If Shakespeare wrote stories with philosophy in it... then he wrote (more or less) philosophy, and why shouldn't that include him in something more than Milne, or Vogue or anything else. And, someone who writes philosophy... technically is a philosopher.
Hamlet is a story about a man who is trying to run from his own fate, and later confronts it realizing that you can't control your own fate. Was that Shakespeare's intent? To write a play about a man running from a fate he couldn't run from...
Well, i did take classes in Shakespeare (several from a dramatic and a literature standpoint) and Hamlet's more of a story about father's than anything else. In it, there are several fathers, and sons, and relationships thereof. Many people say it was a play that Shakespeare wrote trying to understand his own relationship with his father, who was apparently a piss poor dad, and left him fairly early on.
I think Shakespeare did think a lot about fate. He had to. There's just too much evidence to say that wasn't one of the big things on Shakespeare's mind, but does that mean every play he wrote was specifically designed to look at fate and then decide whether or not to change it?
Well, as Joe said, there is a popular academic answer (don't look at the man behind the curtain... just enjoy the show, stupid) but I don' t think this is something one can academically figure out. There's just not enough evidence.
Joe, you said so yourself, the answer was "possibly." So, if you want to think he was a philosopher, who used plays to get out his ideas... go for it. If you want to hink he was a brilliant writer, go for it... and if you want to think he wasn't real, that's your opinion too. Like I said, not enough evidence to say a clearly defined yes or no in any category, just a popular opinion of educated professionals.
And we know how well we should take those... (weapons of mass destruction? Bueller?)


Now, to answer the more important question.
I think Joe's mom is more philosophically significant... hee hee.

 

[Pure]

Hi Joe,

Joe: I, honestly, didn't mean to avoid that, I didn't see my response as avoidance. You asked questions that are all best answered with "possibly".

Did Shakespeare formulate a philosophical issue in Hamlet...? Possibly. It is also possible that he didn't formulate anything, and that any philosophical issue percieved is circumstantial. We may not like to think that, but it /is/ wholly possible either way.

So, because your questions were "possibly, possibly not", I wanted to point out that a better question might be "Did he intend to?" Because, essentially, if he didn't intend to do any of the stuff you were asking about, he wouldn't be a philosopher--he'd be a writer who we are choosing to assume was intending philosophical points (which is my contention).

So, if the more important question is "Did he intend to insert the study of philosophy (or maybe just "a philosophical theory") into his work?" (more important because its at the heart of all your questions, and answers the debate perfectly), we should acknowledge that.

If this is an incorrect approach, please tell me.
-----------


I find questions about Shakespeare's intent, esp. an intent to "insert the study of philosophy" pointless. (as I believe poohlive has said).

It's not an 'incorrect' approach, it's simply a fruitless one. Afaik, there is no evidence Augustine 'intended' to "insert the study of philosophy" either. Yet his texts turn up in philos. courses.

I look to a text, and ask the three questions already stated. Whether the author thinks he's doing philosophy, theology, religious studies, logic, hermeneutics, tale-telling, myth-inventing, or mental calisthenics makes no difference to me, and I can't recall the 'intent' question as having any prominent place in any philosophy course I've taken or heard of.

You have a proclivity for vague, or pointless or unanswerable questions: Despite your training, you're doing little to advance, and much to impede the progress of the debate. IMO.

Here are two little questions for you. When Plato included a mythic tale(Allegory) of the Cave in his dialogue, was he advancing philosophical analysis or treatment of any topic?

Does Nietzsche's tale "Thus spake Zarathrustra" advance philosophical analysis or treatment of any topic?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Pure
Hi Joe,

Joe: I, honestly, didn't mean to avoid that, I didn't see my response as avoidance. You asked questions that are all best answered with "possibly".

Did Shakespeare formulate a philosophical issue in Hamlet...? Possibly. It is also possible that he didn't formulate anything, and that any philosophical issue percieved is circumstantial. We may not like to think that, but it /is/ wholly possible either way.

So, because your questions were "possibly, possibly not", I wanted to point out that a better question might be "Did he intend to?" Because, essentially, if he didn't intend to do any of the stuff you were asking about, he wouldn't be a philosopher--he'd be a writer who we are choosing to assume was intending philosophical points (which is my contention).

So, if the more important question is "Did he intend to insert the study of philosophy (or maybe just "a philosophical theory") into his work?" (more important because its at the heart of all your questions, and answers the debate perfectly), we should acknowledge that.

If this is an incorrect approach, please tell me.
-----------


I find questions about Shakespeare's intent, esp. an intent to "insert the study of philosophy" pointless. (as I believe poohlive has said).

It's not an 'incorrect' approach, it's simply a fruitless one. Afaik, there is no evidence Augustine 'intended' to "insert the study of philosophy" either. Yet his texts turn up in philos. courses.

I look to a text, and ask the three questions already stated. Whether the author thinks he's doing philosophy, theology, religious studies, logic, hermeneutics, tale-telling, myth-inventing, or mental calisthenics makes no difference to me, and I can't recall the 'intent' question as having any prominent place in any philosophy course I've taken or heard of.

You have a proclivity for vague, or pointless or unanswerable questions: Despite your training, you're doing little to advance, and much to impede the progress of the debate. IMO.

Here are two little questions for you. When Plato included a mythic tale(Allegory) of the Cave in his dialogue, was he advancing philosophical analysis or treatment of any topic?

Does Nietzsche's tale "Thus spake Zarathrustra" advance philosophical analysis or treatment of any topic?

Well, regardless our preference for it... it /is/ a key question. Much the same way that if someone wrote something that others took to be funny, but hadn't intended to--he wouldn't be a comedian. Being a philosopher is a lot like being a number of other things, why isn't intention a marker?

The question really is important. It is also hard to answer.

Augistine was a philosopher. He wrote, specifically, philosophy pieces presented to philosophy circles in the manner of philosophical treatises of his day. I don't think many can deny the form of his problem of evil solutions being in a philosophically acceptable manner.

As far as Plato goes, and the Allegor of the Cave, yes. I think so.

I don't mean for things to be vague, if you need me to clarify something, just ask.