Does Great Literature Make Us Better?

Even if "The chain of cause and effect goes back to the Big Bang or even earlier" that does not preclude "proximate causes". It's reasonable to say that a murder "caused" someone's death, even if the murder was the inevitable result of the big bang.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

I see your point and am beginning to understand your perspective on this. My only criticism of your position is the fact that a genetically gifted person might never go on to cultivate their intellect, will without education, without books, fail to reach their full potential. Like me my brother was in gifted classes as a kid, like me he got the best grades, but unlike me he did not pursue education into adulthood, and the discrepancy between our levels of intellectual sophistication is apparent to anyone who listens in on our discussions. I utterly own him in every debate, even in those which presuppose no specifically scholarly knowledge.

---

Genetics is only part of it, but were you and your brother very similar in personality from the youngest ages? I would guess that there were significant differences from your earliest activities. Did he not cultivate his intellect because he didn't read great literature, or was his personality such that he was not interested in intellectual matters? I would contend that he was destined to be not especially intellectual from before birth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hannah_arendt

Potential isn`t enought. Without educations we cannot develop our skills, ideas. That is why education is so important.

---

But without potential and relevant interests people do not follow a program of education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Even if "The chain of cause and effect goes back to the Big Bang or even earlier" that does not preclude "proximate causes". It's reasonable to say that a murder "caused" someone's death, even if the murder was the inevitable result of the big bang.

---

I wonder if this has ever been used as a defense! :P

"The Big Bang made me do it!"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

But without potential and relevant interests people do not follow a program of education.

---

Yes, without any doubt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

"The Big Bang made me do it!"

---

Charges dropped!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

No, it is more like we read what we already are. We are the product of what came before, not what we do. We read literature, whether great or small, due to causes that largely pre-existed us. The chain of cause and effect goes back to the Big Bang or even earlier.

---

I don't know I think everything we do up to now has an effect on us. If a book is depressive then the emotions learned picked up from it are going to be the same. It may be not be evident but long term what we read will shape the way we think and behave long term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cacian

I don't know I think everything we do up to now has an effect on us. If a book is depressive then the emotions learned picked up from it are going to be the same. It may be not be evident but long term what we read will shape the way we think and behave long term.

---

That is a matter of logic. Any philosopher of physicist would argue that everything that we do will inevitably be the cause of some later actions. The chain of cause and effect is not evident, except on rare occasions, but we read what we are programmed by DNA to find interesting. Everything makes perfect sense, and it all fits nicely together, but we need to find the evidence that is not clearly bvious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Nobody has ever denied that Sigismondo de Malatesta, the Lord of Rimini, had excellent taste. He hired the most refined of quattrocento architects, Leno Battista Alberti, to design a memorial temple to his wife, and then got the sculptor Agostino de Duccio to decorate it, and retained Piero della Francesca to paint it. Yet Sigismondo was a man of such callousness and rapcity that he was known in life as Il Lupo, The Wolf, and so execrated after his death that the Catholic Church made him (for a time) the only man apart from Judas Iscariot officially listed as being in Hell—a distinction he earned by trussing up a Papal emissary, the fifteen-year-old Bishop of Fano, in his own rochet and publicly sodomizing him before his applauding army in the main square of Rimini.

Robert Hughes- The Culture of Complaint

The example of the Nazis, a great many of whom had the most impeccable taste in art, music, and literature... should be enough to lay waste to the naive notion of the moral value of art... or rather the notion that reading great literature, looking at great paintings, and listening to great music will make one a "better" person.

---

I don't think the question here is at all whether someone can be a wicked person while also having a good taste or love for literature/art/culture. The answer to that question is obvious as you have pointed out. A psychopathic person is likely to draw psychopathic conclusions from what he reads. The solipsistic mould everything they read around themselves and so gain little perspective. But literature in general makes people more open minded and more understanding of others. In a free society literature is always available: this is not a coincidence. The Nazi's were also book-burners, as are nearly all of the most reactionary ideologies around. This is not a coincidence either.

It doesn't necessarily make you better per se, but it provides one with the tools to make oneself a better person. I just don't think that can be denied, at all. I cannot think that the world would not be a far better place if everyone in it had read say Middlemarch. But of course: literature can also poison the mind, that cannot be denied either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Great literature does not make us better. The world is predetermined; we are what we were born to be, and that includes reading the literature that we read. There are people who have engaged in self-delusion to the point that they believe that they decide that courses of their lives, but they are mistaken.

---

This is such a nothing answer. No one was asking whether the world was predetermined. Nor does it have any relevance to the question, whatsoever. I didn't know something being predetermined meant it never changed, because that is what you seem to be implying.

Experiencing great art of any kind makes us better people in some way, of course. At the same time, I feel the education system, especially the Anglo-Saxon education system, tends to fetishize and place on a pedestal the act of reading in and of itself as if it were some morally superior activity. It's the 'reading for reading's sake' attitude that gets on my nerves. Reading Kafka will broaden the mind just as will listening to Schubert or even watching Ozu. At the end of the day, it should be accepted that writing is simply a form of expression as is painting canvases or composing music, and they're all valid. The Anglo-Saxon intelligentsia hasn't caught on to this concept. The French, for instance, have grasped this. Read Gore Vidal and you'll see what I mean.

Someone in his or her mid-twenties can't pick up a copy of Pride and Prejudice or Great Expectations without being told they 'should have read that in ninth or tenth grade'. Why is this? It's a huge paradox. American society is deeply anti-intellectual, yet people are expected to have read X, Y, and Z by the time they turn twenty because that's the trajectory 'edcuated' people are supposed to follow. It's an obsession with superficial signs. Having been taught Great Expectations in tenth grade is a sign. Getting a 750 on the SAT verbal is a sign. It has nothing to do with profound, genuine intellectual curiosity. It's about creating the image/illusion of 'well-readness', since 'smart' people have read the 'great books'. How inane would it sound if I patronizingly told people they should have been familiar with Morisot's canvases by the end of eleventh grade or that they should have listened to Bartok's quartets by the time they turned 19? Was someone who was 28 when Pride and Prejudice was first published too old to be reading it?

When people say they 'hate reading', many are simply caving under the pressure to foster an image of learnedness. Not all, but many. There's this pressure to have read all that 'great books', in order to develop into an enlightened, superior being. It's not enough to say 'I'm reading Dostoyevsky and Faulkner at the moment but will eventually get to Charlotte Bronte or Chekhov' the way one says they're a fan of Mingus and Neil Young but will listen to Monk and Nick Drake eventually. If people were permitted to take such an attitude towards their exploration of the literary canon there would be a lot less bitterness towards reading in and of itself I think. But no, you already need to have read Cervantes, Dostoyevsky, Austen, Dickens, Shakespeare, Tolstoy, Pushkin, Yeats, Joyce, Faulkner, Balzac and everyone else by the time you're 25 or 30 or else you're ignorant. People are pressured to know the literary canon inside and out before they've even begun their journey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mande2013

Experiencing great art of any kind makes us better people in some way, of course. At the same time, I feel the education system, especially the Anglo-Saxon education system, tends to fetishize and place on a pedestal the act of reading in and of itself as if it were some morally superior activity. It's the 'reading for reading's sake' attitude that gets on my nerves. Reading Kafka will broaden the mind just as will listening to Schubert or even watching Ozu. At the end of the day, it should be accepted that writing is simply a form of expression as is painting canvases or composing music, and they're all valid. The Anglo-Saxon intelligentsia hasn't caught on to this concept. The French, for instance, have grasped this. Read Gore Vidal and you'll see what I mean.

Someone in his or her mid-twenties can't pick up a copy of Pride and Prejudice or Great Expectations without being told they 'should have read that in ninth or tenth grade'. Why is this? It's a huge paradox. American society is deeply anti-intellectual, yet people are expected to have read X, Y, and Z by the time they turn twenty because that's the trajectory 'edcuated' people are supposed to follow. It's an obsession with superficial signs. Having been taught Great Expectations in tenth grade is a sign. Getting a 750 on the SAT verbal is a sign. It has nothing to do with profound, genuine intellectual curiosity. It's about creating the image/illusion of 'well-readness', since 'smart' people have read the 'great books'. How inane would it sound if I patronizingly told people they should have been familiar with Morisot's canvases by the end of eleventh grade or that they should have listened to Bartok's quartets by the time they turned 19? Was someone who was 28 when Pride and Prejudice was first published too old to be reading it?

---

Completely disagree. It has not been long since i exited the education system in the UK, and i find that there is a deemphasis placed on anything that does not have some kind of practical or vocational application. It is always about what a certain thing will contribute to the student's career path, what will get him ahead in the production line. Reading for the sake of reading and reading for any reason other than the completing of pre-set tasks is almost non-existant in schools, and among pupils. Education has become completely task based, and so very few take up and pursue reading on their initiative - they are not even told why they should, or taught the joys of literature. It is all: read this so you can answer that etc.

The consequence of all this is that young people simply don't read anymore. It is not so much what people should have read by the 9th or 10th grade, but that most of that age have not read anything at all. And the literature they are given in school will always appear a chore because it often gives things like Shakespeare to people that have never read anything serious - that is nonsensical.

This modern aversion to literature is a clear sign of the stupefying effects of academics and bureaucracy on culture; the degradation of art, man and intelligence, simply stated.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phocion

This is such a nothing answer. No one was asking whether the world was predetermined. Nor does it have any relevance to the question, whatsoever. I didn't know something being predetermined meant it never changed, because that is what you seem to be implying.

---

Apparently you did not consider the implications of my comments. In a predetermined world one is what one is, regardless of what or if one reads.

I agree with you Phocion. As for reading something so you can answer a question on the test, that's partially what I was getting at I think with the whole notion of fostering the illusion of learnedness, in order to become a respectable upper middle-class member of society. Then again, perhaps I'm channeling an attitude that dates from the sixties rather than from the noughties.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Apparently you did not consider the implications of my comments. In a predetermined world one is what one is, regardless of what or if one reads.

---

That is not correct, Peter. Assuming a predetermined world, each individual's reading habits are predetermined along with everything else about him. You cannot correctly say that that "one is what one is, regardless of what one reads". Instead, one is what one is, and what one reads is part of what one is. The high school scholar who flunks his pop quizzes because he failed to read his assignments may have been destined to flunk, and destined to fail to read the book -- but it's still reasonable to say he flunked his quiz "because" he didn't read his assignment. Whether he was destined to leave the assignment unread is irrelevant to the truth value of "he flunked because he didn't read the book".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

That is not correct, Peter. Assuming a predetermined world, each individual's reading habits are predetermined along with everything else about him. You cannot correctly say that that "one is what one is, regardless of what one reads". Instead, one is what one is, and what one reads is part of what one is. The high school scholar who flunks his pop quizzes because he failed to read his assignments may have been destined to flunk, and destined to fail to read the book -- but it's still reasonable to say he flunked his quiz "because" he didn't read his assignment. Whether he was destined to leave the assignment unread is irrelevant to the truth value of "he flunked because he didn't read the book".

---

Apparently oyu don't know what predetermined means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Apparently oyu don't know what predetermined means.

---

Actually, I do. Apparently you don't know what "causes" means or what "truth value" means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Apparently you did not consider the implications of my comments. In a predetermined world one is what one is, regardless of what or if one reads.

---

No, in a predetermined world one is shaped by one's interactions and experiences; they may be predetermined also, but that does not mean that if they did not exist then the person would be exactly the same as if they did. To say everything is predetermined through cause and effect due to everything originating from a single point is little more than a platitude, and really has no relevance to this discussion. But to say what someone reads has no bearing on them as a person is foolish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mande2013

I agree with you Phocion. As for reading something so you can answer a question on the test, that's partially what I was getting at I think with the whole notion of fostering the illusion of learnedness, in order to become a respectable upper middle-class member of society. Then again, perhaps I'm channeling an attitude that dates from the sixties rather than from the noughties.

---

Yeah i actually think we were saying the same kind of thing, except you were attacking it from one side (that academics portray reading as a pursuit of the intellectual elite), and i from the other (that people don't read because they hold misconceptions about it being 'high-brow' or difficult or like work etc.).

They are mutually reenforcing also, so it is unlikely to ever change.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Actually, I do. Apparently you don't know what "causes" means or what "truth value" means.

---

You are mistaken.

pre·de·ter·mine
[pree-di-tur-min] Show IPA
verb (used with object), pre·de·ter·mined, pre·de·ter·min·ing.
1. to settle or decide in advance: He had predetermined his answer to the offer.
2. to ordain in advance; predestine: She believed that God had predetermined her sorrow.
3. to direct or impel; influence strongly: His sympathy for the poor predetermined his choice of a career.
http://dictionary.reference.com/brow...determined?s=t
Especially note definition 2. That I would write this was predetermined from the time of the Big Bang by the law of cause and effect.


If you want it to mean something else, then Humpty Dumpty may back you up.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

I'd ask you to enlighten me, but you don't seem inclined to do so, and I doubt you are able to.

Here's how one philosopher defined "cause":

What do we mean by “cause” when we say “actions are caused by X or Y forces.” If something happens, must it be “caused” to happen? It seems to me we use “cause” in several distinct ways:


1) A “cause” is the free and intentional act of a conscious and responsible agent. (i.e. if you shoot some one, you cause his death).

2) A “cause” is the handle we manipulate to create an effect. (i.e. if x+existing conditions = y, and x can be manipulated, we say x causes y) By this definition, if a car skids going around a curve, the "cause" may be the speed of the car (to the driver), the lack of banking on the turn (to the road engineer), or the lack of traction in the tires (to the tire maker). This definition can also be used by experimental scientists.

3) In theoretical science, a cause is something which is necessary in both existence and operation to the thing it is causing, For the rationalist, x causes y if x is an "insight" into y, so you could say the first two sides of a triangle "cause" the dimensions of the third side. For the empiricist, a cause is an observed conjunction -- all x are followed by y.


Now definition #1 presupposes free will, and #2 presupposes “manipulation”, which suggests some sort of human will. That leaves definition #3. It is surely possible that some day we will have a theory that allows us to see when one circumstance is “necessary in both existence and operation” to another. However, since we lack that knowledge now, we might as well act as if we have free will. An action caused by something of which we are ignorant and a “free act” are distinguished only by a distinction without a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

I'd ask you to enlighten me, but you don't seem inclined to do so, and I doubt you are able to.

Here's how one philosopher defined "cause":

What do we mean by “cause” when we say “actions are caused by X or Y forces.” If something happens, must it be “caused” to happen? It seems to me we use “cause” in several distinct ways:


1) A “cause” is the free and intentional act of a conscious and responsible agent. (i.e. if you shoot some one, you cause his death).

2) A “cause” is the handle we manipulate to create an effect. (i.e. if x+existing conditions = y, and x can be manipulated, we say x causes y) By this definition, if a car skids going around a curve, the "cause" may be the speed of the car (to the driver), the lack of banking on the turn (to the road engineer), or the lack of traction in the tires (to the tire maker). This definition can also be used by experimental scientists.

3) In theoretical science, a cause is something which is necessary in both existence and operation to the thing it is causing, For the rationalist, x causes y if x is an "insight" into y, so you could say the first two sides of a triangle "cause" the dimensions of the third side. For the empiricist, a cause is an observed conjunction -- all x are followed by y.


Now definition #1 presupposes free will, and #2 presupposes “manipulation”, which suggests some sort of human will. That leaves definition #3. It is surely possible that some day we will have a theory that allows us to see when one circumstance is “necessary in both existence and operation” to another. However, since we lack that knowledge now, we might as well act as if we have free will. An action caused by something of which we are ignorant and a “free act” are distinguished only by a distinction without a difference.

---

Predetermine
2. to ordain in advance; predestine.
This definition does note imply or even suggest manipulation. That example that cited "God" was not necessary.

We seem to use the same definition for cause, but you seem not to understand the concept of "cause and effect". You might want to study logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

An action caused by something of which we are ignorant and a “free act” are distinguished only by a distinction without a difference.

---

Could you clarify this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

Predetermine
2. to ordain in advance; predestine.
This definition does note imply or even suggest manipulation. That example that cited "God" was not necessary.

We seem to use the same definition for cause, but you seem not to understand the concept of "cause and effect". You might want to study logic.

---

There can be multiple causes for any effect, as is clearly seen in example 2 above. You might try to read one of "Miss Manners" excellent books on etiquette, as well as one on logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hypatia_

Could you clarify this?

---

Sure. Suppose you are playing poker. You are drawing one card to an inside straight. Of the 47 unseen cards, 4 will fill the inside straight, so using rudimentary arithmetic, you think, "I have 4/47 chance of filling my straght, or, about 1/12." Of course you will be dealt (given an honest dealer) the card that happens to be on the top of the deck. To the omniscient observer (or any observer who can see the other side of the card) you have either a 100% or a 0% chance of filling your straight. The card you will be dealt is predetermined, by the original shuffle. Nonetheless, for the poker player trying to decide whether to draw a card or not, it is useful to ACT AS IF the odds are 4/47 of filling the straight. That's because he doesn't know what the card on the top of the deck is. The fact that the next card to be dealt is "predetermined" is irrelevant to him -- for all he cares the dealer could reshuffle the deck before dealing him his card.

By the way, why does Peter's definition offer "predestine" as a synonym. Since "destiny" is "the predetermined ordering of events", isn't "predestined" redundant?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

Sure. Suppose you are playing poker. You are drawing one card to an inside straight. Of the 47 unseen cards, 4 will fill the inside straight, so using rudimentary arithmetic, you think, "I have 4/47 chance of filling my straght, or, about 1/12." Of course you will be dealt (given an honest dealer) the card that happens to be on the top of the deck. To the omniscient observer (or any observer who can see the other side of the card) you have either a 100% or a 0% chance of filling your straight. The card you will be dealt is predetermined, by the original shuffle. Nonetheless, for the poker player trying to decide whether to draw a card or not, it is useful to ACT AS IF the odds are 4/47 of filling the straight. That's because he doesn't know what the card on the top of the deck is. The fact that the next card to be dealt is "predetermined" is irrelevant to him -- for all he cares the dealer could reshuffle the deck before dealing him his card.

By the way, why does Peter's definition offer "predestine" as a synonym. Since "destiny" is "the predetermined ordering of events", isn't "predestined" redundant?

---

I use common word to make things comprehensible to more people.

It appears that you atree edging toward noticing that everything was caused by something, and th=at those causes were not conscious acts of humans. In a while you will realize that whether the Gods or the Laws of the Universe were the initial movers, humans, and everything else has a chain of cause and effect that determines what they (it) will do, or what will happen to it, depending on how you look at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ecurb

I'd ask you to enlighten me, but you don't seem inclined to do so, and I doubt you are able to.

Here's how one philosopher defined "cause":

What do we mean by “cause” when we say “actions are caused by X or Y forces.” If something happens, must it be “caused” to happen? It seems to me we use “cause” in several distinct ways:


1) A “cause” is the free and intentional act of a conscious and responsible agent. (i.e. if you shoot some one, you cause his death).

---

This begs the question, assuming that there are "free and intentional act(s)".

Quote:

---

2) A “cause” is the handle we manipulate to create an effect. (i.e. if x+existing conditions = y, and x can be manipulated, we say x causes y) By this definition, if a car skids going around a curve, the "cause" may be the speed of the car (to the driver), the lack of banking on the turn (to the road engineer), or the lack of traction in the tires (to the tire maker). This definition can also be used by experimental scientists.

---

This also begs the question in the same way.

Quote:

---

3) In theoretical science, a cause is something which is necessary in both existence and operation to the thing it is causing, For the rationalist, x causes y if x is an "insight" into y, so you could say the first two sides of a triangle "cause" the dimensions of the third side. For the empiricist, a cause is an observed conjunction -- all x are followed by y.

---

This is valid in most situations.

Quote:

---

Now definition #1 presupposes free will, and #2 presupposes “manipulation”, which suggests some sort of human will. That leaves definition #3. It is surely possible that some day we will have a theory that allows us to see when one circumstance is “necessary in both existence and operation” to another. However, since we lack that knowledge now, we might as well act as if we have free will. An action caused by something of which we are ignorant and a “free act” are distinguished only by a distinction without a difference.

---

If you don't see any difference, then you might want to think about it. I will admit that there is no difference in the final result whether humans are aware of the chain of cause and effect, but the ethics and fundamental understanding are different.

What is your evidence that we live in a pre-determined world?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

Well, it would seem if there is any answer in this thread to the question it's that literature can make you better by making you less ignorant of the world and yourself.

---

And with that knowledge, does one not become better-equipped to improve himself or his society in some way?


At the very least, he would understand his world better. Is that not the first step?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Drkshadow03

What is your evidence that we live in a pre-determined world?

---

I won't be so rude as to answer that, but it sums up the problem that I have been facing on this thread, which I will no longer visit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

I won't be so rude as to answer that, but it sums up the problem that I have been facing on this thread, which I will no longer visit.

---

PeterL, you are a veritable pessimist. Just reading your posts depresses me.


Here's a movie that I'd like you to watch someday; perhaps it will brighten your worldview and put a smile on your face:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YIBaKrRnbLM

Yes, Peter, a philosopher writing a general definition of "causation" might very well beg your particular questions, since he was not intending to address them. However, if you (rudely) suggest that others participating in this thread don't understand "cause and effect", and then dismiss the normal meanings of "cause" as "begging the question", we can hardly take you seriously. It is you (evidently) who don't understand what "cause" means. We say germs "cause" disease, because we can use that theory to create sterile hospitals, antibiotics and vaccines that save lives. I'll grant that this is irrelevant to the question of whether our ability to deal with germs was "predetermined". Nonetheless, what we mean when we say germs "cause" disease (using definition 2 in my post above) is that they are a handle that can be manipulated to ameliorate diseases. Of course, germs alone are insufficient to create diseases. A conjunction of circumstances is necessary for diseases to occur.

Saying that the Big Bang caused disease isn’t particularly helpful. The poker player who says the odds of filling the inside straight are either 0% or 100% is correct (from one perspective) but will probably lose his money.

Your choice. Well, actually according to your worldview I suppose it was always inevitable that you would no longer visit this thread!

Anyway, it seems to me the problem in the thread is you're dismissing others' statements for containing supposedly poor logic and lack of evidence for ideas that contradict your worldview ("everything is predetermined"), but you're not really offering much in return besides equally poor logic and lack of evidence to support your counter-argument.

Ah... but I believe it was Peter who informed us all that he was a member of Mensa, thus is is only logical he looks down upon the rest of us mere mortals. Maybe he should read Voltaire?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Ah... but I believe it was Peter who informed us all that he was a member of Mensa, thus is is only logical he looks down upon the rest of us mere mortals. Maybe he should read Voltaire?

---

Dear god...

Then why is he in here propounding non sequiturs such as:

'Great literature does not make us better... The world is predetermined; we are what we were born to be'


Such wisdom. Though i cannot personally see the relevance, maybe it is beyond my the reaches of my IQ-level?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stlukesguild

Ah... but I believe it was Peter who informed us all that he was a member of Mensa, thus is is only logical he looks down upon the rest of us mere mortals. Maybe he should read Voltaire?

---

He is what he is if you believe in Mensa. I don't. I think intelligence cannot be measured myself but that is a personal view on it. ;)

I personally do not believe in giving titles to distinguish one literature from another. Literature should just be literature none of the great or poor or whatever else one wish to describe it.

~

W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

If you think a discussion is "waste of time",

feel free to ignore it and leave the ground to those who do NOT find it a "waste of time".

~

PS: I was not pre-destined to word this message like that; on the spur of the moment, I decided to stray from my usual drone.

PPS: I am pretty sure no animals have been harmed in the posting of this message either.

Perhaps not related directly to the thread topic, but is the notion of Shakespeare as the greatest of them all a somewhat Anglo-centric phenomenon? I wonder if perhaps in say Germany and France he's merely seen as a great amongst many the way Cervantes, Tolstoy and Goethe, for instance, are seen as greats amongst many within the Anglosphere.

Cacian... there are few people who impress me in terms of intelligence, achievement, or knowledge on the internet... here or elsewhere. JBI, Petrarch's Love, Virgil, Jcamilo, mortal terror and a handful of others all have earned my deepest respect... whatever that is worth.

Thanks dude, likewise.

In this study, students who read short stories were more comfortable with ambiguity:

http://www.salon.com/2013/06/15/book...sions_partner/

Whether these students could impress stlukesguild with their intelligence, achievement or knowledge is not, of course, for me to say. Many are called but few are chosen for that exalted privilege.

I believe in predestination but I hope I ain't too dull. I also believe in resurrection - of old threads

Lots of junk in here.

Literature does something nobody here has mentioned yet. Literature teaches complex verbal expression. And people use this complexity to mask ignorance.

There's a ton of highly literate people in the world. They write oodles of words that are designed to seem insightful, or clever, or challenging. Whatever intelligence is, being able to assume the authorial voice of a textbook is not that.







J

Only holy books can make you a better person, not just literature.


I know a few stupids who have read almost every novel out there, but still they don't know how to give respect!