Pointless argumentative thread alert

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Pure
Joe, you sometimes make papal pronouncements that are pure bosh:

Like...?

To wit:

I never said he[Sartre] didn't raise or deal with philosophical issues. I said he wasn't a philosopher.

"he[Shakespeare]" would be my point. I never said a word about Sarte. I actually did my undergrad thesis using Sarte.

I realize that it may be a response, and that it was an honest mistake (thinking I was talking about Sarte), and that there's no reason to get bent out of shape about it... but geez.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by poohlive
This isn't to say Shakespeare's a philosopher (and it REALLY isn't to say Britney Spears is a philosopher) just that he offered up some opinions of his own, and toyed with a few ideas... as any good writer should do.

I find that highly agreeable. : )

 

[The Mutt]

In the past week, Joe has compared William Shakespeare to Britney Spears, Winnie the Pooh and Vogue magazine.
I think that tells us just about all we need to know about the value of his opinions on just about anything.

I'll put this question to all who have been following this thread:
If you could only pick one book to take into the shelter to survive the end of the world, would it be...
A: The Complete Works of Shakespeare
B: The Collected Works of the Greatest Philosophers
C: The Bible

Talk among yourselves.
Mutt the Almighty

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by The Mutt
In the past week, Joe has compared William Shakespeare to Britney Spears, Winnie the Pooh and Vogue magazine.
I think that tells us just about all we need to know about the value of his opinions on just about anything.

Actually, to be more accurate, I compared Shakespeare-as-a-creative-person-who-wrote-emotive-things to Britney Speares-as-a-creative-person-who-wrote-emotive-things--categorically, there's nothing actually wrong or even incorrect about that. Sort of like how a Pagani Zonda is a car and a Chevy Corsica is a car--categorically, that is accurate.

I also said that I had read Shakespeares plays and found them no more philosophically intensive than Winnie the Pooh (which can be seen as a giant metaphysical metaphor OR an ethical Q-and-A, but isn't a philosophy treatise or theory; much like Shakespeare having philosophical issues, but not being treatise nor theory) or Vogue (a similar thing, it has issues that can be philosophical, but isn't a treatise nor a theory).

If you're going to reference me off, at least get it right. Past that, you're advocating a Straw Man Fallacy of logic by misrepresenting my comparisons (lack of depth concerning how and why the comparisons were made).

Good job.

 

[The Mutt]

I also said that I had read Shakespeares plays and found them no more philosophically intensive than Winnie the Pooh... or Vogue.

You may have read them, but you sure didn't get them.

 

[Pure]

Joe,
Yes, it does appear I misread you. Your 'he' was not entirely clear.

"he[Shakespeare]" would be my point. I never said a word about Sarte. I actually did my undergrad thesis using Sarte.

I realize that it may be a response, and that it was an honest mistake (thinking I was talking about Sarte), and that there's no reason to get bent out of shape about it... but geez.

OK, you've written about Sartre. I trust you spelled his name right.

I find the "Is Shakespeare a philosopher" a very unappealing way to proceed. I would instead ask

Did Shakespeare formulate or identify a philosophical issue in [Hamlet]?
Did he shed any light on it in Hamlet.?
Did he indicate any position(s) on it in Hamlet, which could be fleshed out in a fuller argument.?

I think all the answers are 'yes.'

I believe it's poohlive who used the example of 'nihilism.' One version of it is in Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra, which could be called a tale or narrative. Yet the questions above also yield 'yes' answers. One may say that as with Sartre views, they come out both in stories and in philosophical writings of the usual sort.

You brought up the issue of someone's producing a ''philosophical treatise." Again I find that too narrow. I don't think Nietzsche produced one, though Spinoza and Sartre did.

As to whether, as you say, Ayn Rand is a philosopher and a writer, I think that's a bit of a stretch--somewhat like saying that guy William Hung (sp?), on American Idol, is a singer. (She's been knocked around these threads a bit.)

Joe:
I had read Shakespeares plays and found them no more philosophically intensive than Winnie the Pooh.

I suppose you're being provocative, but Mutt suggests, this does tend to raise doubts about your abilities to learn from literature. Oddly, there is a book by a well known philosopher called "From Shakespeare to Existentialism" and I'm sure he thought the kinds of questions I listed above--referring to philsophical activity and relevance, are examples of the most fruitful ones to ask.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Pure
I find the "Is Shakespeare a philosopher" a very unappealing way to proceed. I would instead ask

Did Shakespeare formulate or identify a philosophical issue in [Hamlet]?
Did he shed any light on it in Hamlet.?
Did he indicate any position(s) on it in Hamlet, which could be fleshed out in a fuller argument.?

I think all the answers are 'yes.'

If we open those sorts of questions, we open others with it like "Did his story merely happen to identify a philosophical issue, independant of formulaic intention?" That's a bit tougher, to open up the idea that Shakespeare was being a philosopher, we'd have to accept that as an intention. Something not easy to do. I recall an interview with the writer of True Grit (with John Wayne), where he said--in response to John Wayne's Oscar acceptance speech of "If I'd known all I had to do was wear an eyepatch to get one of these, I'd have done it years ago"--that people identified with the characters in ways he didn't intend.

That always sticks with me whenever I hear anyone talk about the intention of any writer.

You brought up the issue of someone's producing a ''philosophical treatise." Again I find that too narrow. I don't think Nietzsche produced one, though Spinoza and Sartre did.

As to whether, as you say, Ayn Rand is a philosopher and a writer, I think that's a bit of a stretch--somewhat like saying that guy William Hung (sp?), on American Idol, is a singer. (She's been knocked around these threads a bit.)

Nietzsche did write treatises... not all of them good, and not many of them as popular as several of his books. I am hounded by articles I had to read, primary sources, by him and the phrase "philosophy with a hammer".

I, personally, don't agree with one thing Ayn Rand has ever written in ethics--I find Objectivist Ethics to be a bastardization of some really promising theories and thank James Rachels for his work in refutation of it. But that I don't like or agree with her does not mean I can deny her the title. Her body of work in philosophy is significant. She truly is a philosopher.

I suppose you're being provocative, but Mutt suggests, this does tend to raise doubts about your abilities to learn from literature.

I learned Planck's Constant from Untold Tales of Spider-Man no.6 in the mid-nineties... it helped me pass physics in high school. I would never say that one can't learn anything from literature. Only that categorically, I find Shakespeare (whom I like) to deal with philosophical issues no deeper than most good reading. "Of Mice and Men" deals with a lot of social issues (I would say Shakespeare deals with far, far more intensive social issues than philosophical ones), but I wouldn't necessarily call Steinbeck a sociologist.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by The Mutt
You may have read them, but you sure didn't get them.

Or, perhaps, I both read and "got" them. If you care to explain how I "didn't get them", I'd be delighted to hear it (and responses that boil down to "because you wouldn't be saying that if you did" aren't an explanation).

 

[The Mutt]

Or, perhaps, I both read and "got" them. If you care to explain how I "didn't get them", I'd be delighted to hear it (and responses that boil down to "because you wouldn't be saying that if you did" aren't an explanation).

It is an amusing game you play. By declaring that the rest of us simply aren't educated enough to argue properly, you get to do things like compare Shakespeare to Winnie the Pooh and then claim that you really didn't, that we just aren't bright enough to understand what you really meant. It is an old lawyer's trick: if you can't argue the merits, argue the rules.
It couldn't be that you just don't communicate very well, could it?
Then there is the "answer this question, but if you use these answers, you're wrong" trick. I choose not to waste my time.
Instead, I'll give you a homework assignment like you like to give me. Find one critic who feels that A.A. Milne is deeper, more philosophical or better understands the human condition than Shakespaere and I'll fold my tent and declare that you are a master of Logic and Philosophy with a capital P and I am just a lowly Shakespearian actor with delusions of godhood.

You should be working for Karl Rove.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by The Mutt
It is an amusing game you play. By declaring that the rest of us simply aren't educated enough to argue properly, you get to do things like compare Shakespeare to Winnie the Pooh and then claim that you really didn't, that we just aren't bright enough to understand what you really meant. It is an old lawyer's trick: if you can't argue the merits, argue the rules.
It couldn't be that you just don't communicate very well, could it?
Then there is the "answer this question, but if you use these answers, you're wrong" trick. I choose not to waste my time.
Instead, I'll give you a homework assignment like you like to give me. Find one critic who feels that A.A. Milne is deeper, more philosophical or better understands the human condition than Shakespaere and I'll fold my tent and declare that you are a master of Logic and Philosophy with a capital P and I am just a lowly Shakespearian actor with delusions of godhood.

You should be working for Karl Rove.

Hey, I fully admtted to comparing Shakespeare to Winnie the Pooh--however, there was a context there that is essential to that comparison. Read back, you'll see it, I only point it out for you twice.

I never said a thing about being "bright enough" or any of that stuff. It sounds like you're just getting frustrated that you keep being called on your fallacies (i.e. "by declaring that the rest of us simply aren't educated enough"... I never said that, that's called a Straw Man fallacy. You seem to be fond of them).

How you can justify "you figure this out" assertions before even passingly addressing the ones I ask you to is beyond me.

 

[The Mutt]

I never said a thing about being "bright enough" or any of that stuff. It sounds like you're just getting frustrated that you keep being called on your fallacies (i.e. "by declaring that the rest of us simply aren't educated enough"... I never said that, that's called a Straw Man fallacy.

Did you use those exact words? No. But I doubt that there is a one of us who doesn't understand that that is what you mean.
Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?

Milne wrote little stories about animals that spoke to friendship and family relationships.
Shakespeare wrote epic works dealing with fate, God, war, evil, destiny vs free will, love, duty, loyalty, the divine right of kings, etc. Those weren't just things that appeared in his "stories". It is what they were about. It was his INTENTION to write about them. If you "got" his stories, you would understand that
Comparing the two is foolish. Asking for an explanation as to why Shakespeare is superior is even more so.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by The Mutt
Did you use those exact words? No. But I doubt that there is a one of us who doesn't understand that that is what you mean.
Anybody? Anybody? Bueller?

Milne wrote little stories about animals that spoke to friendship and family relationships.
Shakespeare wrote epic works dealing with fate, God, war, evil, destiny vs free will, love, duty, loyalty, the divine right of kings, etc.
Comparing the two is foolish. Asking for an explanation as to why Shakespeare is superior is even more so.

But... I didn't mean those things, so how did I say them if I didn't say them; and how did I mean them if I didn't mean them? You want to backpeddle anymore?

Comparing Winnie the Pooh to Shakespeare isn't "foolish", given a proper context. Again, if you're /so/ informed on the subject please humor me with some examples as to why Shakespeare is philosophically more significant than Winnie the Pooh? I don't doubt Shakespeares vocabulary was larger, but there is a grand difference between "war" and a "philosophy of war", "evil" and "the problem of evil [philo/rel]", etc., etc.

At no point did I ask for an explanation as to why Shakespeare is superior... I don't think I ever mentioned superiority. Are you Straw Man fallacy-ing again? Can you just not stick to the actual points and feel the need to invent some so you can make an argument? These aren't meant to be offenses, I really am curious.

 

[minsue]

Ya'll are arguing about arguing.

Damn, can't get much more pointless than that.

I'm too lazy to go back and read to figure out which side to take, but I'd be all over this otherwise.



Carry on.

 

[The Mutt]

Milne wrote stories with morals like "it is good to help your friends."
Shakespeare wrote a five act play about whether a man is controlled by fate or can make choices to change his destiny.
(I'm sure you know which one I mean.)

That is the third time now that you have mentioned the Straw Man Fallacy. I got it the first time. Actually, I knew what it meant before you mentioned it the first time.
This is what I mean by declaring your intellectual superiority.
You see, when people talk they use words. There is text and there is subtext. Go back and read your posts.

Does anyone reading them think that Joe has not been saying that if we were just better educated and knew how to argue properly we would get what he has been trying to say?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

double post

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by The Mutt
Milne wrote stories with morals like "it is good to help your friends."
Shakespeare wrote a five act play about whether a man is controlled by fate or can make choices to change his destiny.
(I'm sure you know which one I mean.)

Or it could be that Shakespeare wrote a five act play where the characters are doing what was prophecized and Milne wrote a cohesion of networkable ethics and raised question about metaphysics (I read a book, once, that talked about Winnie the Pooh being an exercise of imagination and its place in metaphysical ideal/rationallism). Simply put, given that there can be a category with "people who wrote stories that had circumstantial philosophical questions", then both Milne and Shakespeare fit in it. Of course its a broad category, but when contrasted with "people who wrote philosophy", its an important distinction.

That is the third time now that you have mentioned the Straw Man Fallacy. I got it the first time. Actually, I knew what it meant before you mentioned it the first time.
This is what I mean by declaring your intellectual superiority.
You see, when people talk they use words. There is text and there is subtext. Go back and read your posts.

Does anyone reading them think that Joe has not been saying that if we were just better educated and knew how to argue properly we would get what he has been trying to say?

Knowing fallacies isn't intellectual superiority--but I thank you for the flattery--its just part and parcel with my profession. When you attack an argument that the speaker never actually made, because its easier than addressing his actual points... its fallacious. The only reason I point it out when you do it is so you, and anyone else reading who might be circumstantially persuaded, can see that you're not actually dealing with my points--but inventions of your own.

Its an important thing to note in any disagreement, really. Nothing superior about it.

First you say that I said something... which later you admit that I didn't... which you then say "you said X, but meant Y" it... which, of the two of us, I would be in the know about what I mean and don't mean (and have been fairly honest about those sorts of things)... Given that you aren't in the know about what I meant and didn't mean, we go with my interpretation on what I meant (safer)... ultimately... you just keep trying to put words in my mouth and then get all "he's just trying to act all smarty" when I point out that you really are just making things up (the Straw Man).

Clearer for you?

You're sort of making your points narrower and narrower, and none of them are actually panning out.

Would you like to start over?

 

[The Mutt]

Shakespeare didn't write plays that "had circumstantial philosophical questions". He wrote plays about those philosophical questions.

I read a book once that tried to find deep religious meaning in Peanuts cartoons. Didn't make it so.

I'll just go with the interpretation that you don't communicate your points very well, since I (and others) keep getting them all wrong.

I knew a comedian once who just couldn't understand why it was that wherever he went, he kept encountering audiences that were too stupid to get his jokes, never considering that he just wasn't very funny.

 

[Pure]

Joe said,

please humor me with some examples as to why Shakespeare is philosophically more significant than Winnie the Pooh

please humor me with some examples as to why you are philosophically more significant than your mom.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by The Mutt
Shakespeare didn't write plays that "had circumstantial philosophical questions". He wrote plays about those philosophical questions.

Now we're getting somewhere...

What is the difference between writing something that has circumstantial philosophical questions and writing about those philosophical questions?

I knew a comedian once who just couldn't understand why it was that wherever he went, he kept encountering audiences that were too stupid to get his jokes, never considering that he just wasn't very funny.

I haven't run into much any trouble being understood, except by you. Rather, I have come to agreement with several others, so your analogy sort of confuses me. Are you supposed to be the comedian?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by Pure
Joe said,

please humor me with some examples as to why Shakespeare is philosophically more significant than Winnie the Pooh

please humor me with some examples as to why you are philosophically more significant than your mom.

...had I made any assertions about being that, yeah, burden of proof concerning it would be on me.

I'm missing the point.

 

[Pure]

Not that it will do any good, I will remind you of issues you avoid:

I said:

Pure: //Did Shakespeare formulate or identify a philosophical issue in [Hamlet]?
Did he shed any light on it in Hamlet.?
Did he indicate any position(s) on it in Hamlet, which could be fleshed out in a fuller argument.?

I think all the answers are 'yes.'//
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your, Joes response:

If we open those sorts of questions, we open others with it like "Did his story merely happen to identify a philosophical issue, independant of formulaic intention?" That's a bit tougher, to open up the idea that Shakespeare was being a philosopher, we'd have to accept that as an intention.

I see no reason to get saddled with this bogus (intention) question you somehow link to those I asked.

Further you say the linked question is "Did S intend to be a philsopher." You ignore that I don't wish to deal in substantives, and think it a waste of time, as I said in the sentence immediately before your quote:

Pure://I find the "Is Shakespeare a philosopher" a very unappealing way to proceed.//

It's about as enlightening as discussing whether Joe W is a clown.

A number of works of literature give rise to a 'yes' to all three questions, suggesting that they bear consideration by philosophers, as well as students of philosophy. University courses titled "Philosophy in Literature" are extremely common, and no, they don't usually deal with "Peanuts" comics. The works stimulate thinking about and even working on (analysing) philosophical issues.

A wonderful short short piece is that by Borges, on the hexagonal library ("The Library of Babel"): A hypothetical repository of all (human) knowledge. Which brings up the question of navigating through it, i.e., locating the piece of knowledge desired. To me, issues are raised--in an illuminating way-- about computational(addressing) theory, and algorithmic theory, decidability in logic.

Another is the story of "Funes the Memorious," a person who could remember every single thing of every event and circumstance he encountered, down to the textures and colors of every object and surface involved. The nature of memory, what is entailed in its 'completeness' and whether complete and accurate memory are possible are the philosophical issues raised. Light is shed on them in that one 'sees' through the story what a burden or curse a complete memory would be.

 

[The Mutt]

Joe asks: "What is the difference between writing something that has circumstantial philosophical questions and writing about those philosophical questions?"

You don't know? I guess you aren't such a smarty after all.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I see no reason to get saddled with this bogus (intention) question you somehow link to those I asked.

Further you say the linked question is "Did S intend to be a philsopher." You ignore that I don't wish to deal in substantives, and think it a waste of time, as I said in the sentence immediately before your quote: [/B]

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.

Originally posted by The Mutt
Joe asks: "What is the difference between writing something that has circumstantial philosophical questions and writing about those philosophical questions?"

You don't know? I guess you aren't such a smarty after all.

Hey, if you can't answer the question, just say so. I mean, we might just find an accord... never know. But if you're just going to dodge questions, we're probably never going to.

 

[The Mutt]

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.



Hey, if you can't answer the question, just say so. I mean, we might just find an accord... never know. But if you're just going to dodge questions, we're probably never going to.

Shakespeare intended to write about philosophical issues in his plays. That is the consensus of 400 years of Shakespeare scholars. Is it possible he was just a hack writer who got lucky and some philosophy found its way into his plays? Of course. It is also possible he was a space alien. Both possibilities are equally stupid.

Now how can I answer your really, really stupid question?
Animal House is a movie that has circumstantial alcoholics in it.
The Lost Weekend is a movie about an alcoholic.
Got it?

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

Originally posted by The Mutt
Shakespeare intended to write about philosophical issues in his plays. That is the consensus of 400 years of Shakespeare scholars. Is it possible he was just a hack writer who got lucky and some philosophy found its way into his plays? Of course. It is also possible he was a space alien. Both possibilities are equally stupid.

Now how can I answer your really, really stupid question?
Animal House is a movie that has circumstantial alcoholics in it.
The Lost Weekend is a movie about an alcoholic.
Got it?

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)?