do you agree with him?

do you agree with him?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    sam = sam bankman-fried

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      really? if true, now I hate him even more

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's a really interesting question what we mean by "greatest writer" and why Shakespeare has taken this position in cultural consensus. Remarks like this show that writing talent is something that obviously cannot be quantified, it's not a matter of number and probability, it's not as if a new great writer with a higher "writing IQ" were published everyone would suddenly be reading his/her works instead of Shakespeare. The value of writers are embedded in history and culture. We have no "objective" standards of how to judge writers, but we do have cultural ones, cultural ones that Shakespeare himself has informed because of how he was read and appreciated by previous generations. It doesn't mean that he's not still the greatest writer just because he cannot "objectively" be so, whatever that would mean, but he's definitely not the "greatest writer" in the way that Sam is conceiving, as though writing were purely a competition across a totally equally playing field. There's a competitive aspect to culture, certainly, but ultimately each great writer creates the taste by which he is to be enjoyed (as Wordsworth says), which means they are incomparable, with each great new work something positive and previously undiscovered is brought into the world rather than merely the rank of another work brought downwards in a miserable leaderboard of writers. But it's a complex issue, while Sam's conception of culture is obviously flawed it speaks to some truth, it's surely inevitable that Shakespeare's value has been overrated, that other great writers have not been given the proportionate attention that they should deserve, that it could be just a case of herd instinct going wrong.... and yet because of the value we have placed on his works many beautiful things have come into the world. It's difficult to imagine life without the "fiction" of culture, without the "noble lie" that these works actually mean something, that they have their culturally enshrined positions for a reason, and that somehow by reading the works of great writers we have access to a great tradition of the human spirit. But that's where the idea of what Shakespeare means gets entangled with the question of what does it mean for anything to mean or matter at all and it becomes impossible to answer. But we intuitively feel and know that life does matter. We feel, or at least a great many people in history have felt, that Shakespeare is one of history's greatest writers, we feel something great and worthwhile in these works, so it must be worthwhile. Of course the question of the "greatest writer" is ridiculous, it does not matter if Shakespeare is or isn't, it doesn't matter whoever really is, but there is something in Shakespeare that we know really does matter and it is remarkable that we only need to read his works to discover it. And whatever is great in writing is probably something that statistical analysis (for better or worse) can never find.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      is this AI generated or do you just not advocate for the use of paragraph breaks?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      There is something like a "writer IQ" though and Shakespeare might actually have the highest one ever. The guy could turn literally any phrase into music. The only other writer who gives me a similar impression of total effortless mastery is Pushkin.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes and no.

    1. In my opinion Dante and a few others are better than Shakespeare. Shakespeare is great, however, and better than any living writer I know of, in any of the languages I can read. The question of who is "better", however, is nonsense. What we can say is that they are great. After a certain threshold, it becomes silly to argue who's better, just like it's silly to argue, to use a football (soccer) example, whether Ferguson was a better manager than Guardiola, Michels, Ancelotti and a few select others. These managers are above the rest , they are world class, with that we can all agree, but who's the "better" one is a matter of opinion, you can't really measure it, there are too many factors involved and it also depends on which factors you yourself favor the most.
    2. Literature was way, way, way more fundamental in the 1600's, and in fact in any period in history up until the 1900's, than it is today. It was expected of a Renaissance man that he'd be able to write a sonnet. Politicians of the day wrote poetry. King Henry VIII and Queen Elizabeth were themselves somewhat decent poets. Popular music often used meter up until the 40's or so, in many languages, in France even in the 60's it continued. The average person, I mean the average worker, baker, postman of the 19th century, of Shakespeare's time etc. had probably hundreds of lines of verse, actual VERSE memorized.
    Most of the smart people of today go into STEM or commerce, do not read books, are unable to write or think anything other than clichés.
    3. There was less accumulated knowledge, hence more space for imagination, creativity, experimentation.
    4. People, overall, lived more. When you look into any list of great writers, it's astounding how many of them went to war, had fights, went away to explore the world, etc. Homer, obviously, and in fact any Greek or Roman, but Dante too was a soldier, Cervantes was a soldier and prisoner, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Melville, Conrad, etc. All men of great experience. This isn't necessary, but certainly helps a writer.
    5. The age of Shakespeare, Homer, Dante etc. was an aristocratic age. Emphasis was put on greatness, constant comparisons were made with the ancients, education was rigorous, etc. Up until the 20th century this was still the case. As a boy Rimbaud was forced to memorize hundreds upon hundreds of lines of Latin poetry, and he was far, very far from being an exception.
    6. The argument IS CORRECT in the sense that, if those things had remained constant, if we still had an aristocratic spirit and education, and the knowledge of literary tradition had continued, we would, given the larger number of people, have a larger number of great writers. This was, indeed, what happened in the 19th century, which gave us Chateaubriand, Stendhal, Hugo, Verlaine, Baudelaire, Gautier, Mallarmé, Zola, Flaubert, Leopardi, Manzoni, D'Annunzio, Keats, Shelley, Byron, Whitman, Poe, Tolstoy, Chekhov, Dostoevsky etc.

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    on principle I will always disagree with israelites especially if they are frauding thieves

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    You made this thread yesterday and it flopped
    What are the bayesian odds that a man who tries again instead of getting a clue is mentally moronic?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Thread?

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    This is the stupidest paragraph of text ive read in a while and i grade high school essays

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Shakespeare
    >greatest writer
    Who thinks this?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Most Anglos. And they’re right.

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >the kinds of people who go to schools like Stanford and MIT think like this
    Our elite institutions are a disgrace.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      They were never elite. They just better perpetuated and served the middle class regime.

  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Perverted acts in cow pastures with shepherds and shepherdesses

    Once we had an orgy on the meadow near the lake at dawn. It was Autumn of late Indian summer. Everything red and yellow. The lake a lilac cube lit by Helios’ flaming chariot.

    I felt up her thighs to reach the fountain.

    Later on we left, leaving our sperm, excrements and trash all scattered over the Virginian landscape.

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    you could use the same ""math"" to prove how unlikely it is that there would have been great philosophers in the 1700s. how about you actually read the fricking books and try to make sense of them?

    the basic error is the implicit assumption that each literate person is equally likely to produce something of value, by the way.

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Same group of people who tell me about how yesterday so and so football team set a new records for most 4th down on a saturday with a temperature of 76 F outside after rain the previous day when the quarterback's mom was baking cookies and Sakamoto Aruno, 12, of Yanagawa got a B on his math test and ate a bento for lunch all while an astronaut got a score pf 17550 in tetris while waiting for telemetry data

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Muh statistics

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *