05-23-2011, 01:03 AM
21. Shakespeare was a poet who wished to be read and studied than acted on stage.
It is common knowledge that Shakespeare went to a good school, he was a diligent learner, had a very good knowledge of history, was an adept in plotting themes and moreover and more than everything, he was a talented poet. It was his wish not to be read and acted on stage as a playwright but to be learned and studied as a poet and creator of literature. But in his times, to win his daily bread, he had no other choice but to write plays and get them played on stage. He always considered his works as major literary creations in poetry which we now know were true too. So he was in his inner self a sad poet who for a living had to go through the tediousness of arranging stage presentations. But he firmly believed that a day would come when he would be begun to be studied as a poet rather than being acted on stage as a dramatist. Therefore he saw no reason to lower the permanence and durability of his poetry by using normal conversation-like dialogues instead of Iambic Pentameter which was easy for him. It was not at all a trouble for him. His poetical lines were nearer to dance than drama. Try to sing those lines in fast rhythm: you will recognize how easy it would have been for him to create them. Today we all know that his wish has been granted by Time. Shakespeare has ceased to be acted on stage but begun to be studied as a poet. Thomas Hardy, another Londoner, protested forming a Shakespeare Memorial Theatre and predicted that he was no more a playwright but a poet and would soon be begun to be considered so.
No one turns to Shakespeare’s plays for learning the truth of historical events for all knows that he distorted the relevance and comparative significance of events in history for stage appeal and poetical charm. Therefore, as many Lit Netters in this forum have pointed out, it is good to read his works in the order of their writing or staging so that the intellectual development of the writer could be followed.
Like all poets who wished immortality for his poems, Shakespeare also did not compromise the loftiness of his language and diction for momentary applause. When needed, he did lower the refinement of his speeches to suit the tongue and demeanor of his characters. But that he was writing for the uneducated and moderately educated is a fallacy into which many of his critics and evaluators have fallen into. In fact, he knew that his great many spectators were rising in their language skills, refinement and polishness each day, with each show. What else to cause delight to an entertainer?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to Thread: Three questions from a Shakespeare novice.
05-30-2011, 10:30 PM
22. Death is the end of all earthly cares and the beginning of a new way of life.
Death is the end of all earthly cares and the beginning of a new way of life uncorpuscular. Suppose we have come to this world for a brief stay away from our home. Won't we be happy to return to our dear and near? Or suppose we actually are not living in this world but lying on some other realm of time and dreaming about leading a life in the Planet Earth which we know for some reason. What relevance is there then for this frantic fear of leaving this world at an unexpected time? Considering the limitlessness and complexity of this universe and other universes, it is not logical to think that there is not any scheme for things. The growth of a seed into a tall tree and the growth of a tiny child into a very influential man of the world reveal that everything is excellently planned and the key for chartered growth is implanted in each being. Not everything in this world is a being and so every being has its purpose and its meaning. At least they serve well the purpose of maintaining an uninterrupted continuity of life through adversities. A man who just lies in his cozy easy chair and think about its brevity and meaninglessness don't have the bird's eye view to watch its adventurous progress through the ages. It was like a relay race bearing a torch of flame through millions and millions of years. The race from simple plankton to a space-travelling man was not a short and easy one. The biological chain could have been broken anywhere, anytime. That is the ultimate purpose of man-to continue and further life.
-------------------------------------------------------
In reply to Thread: Is awareness of death good?
05-30-2011, 11:12 PM
23. All political philosophers since Plato were echoes: When their spell vanished, things reverted.
The oldest political philosopher still remains the greatest ever single political influence in this world which was Plato. And he still remains the most read political philosopher in this world. Thousands and thousands of political philosophers have come, held a brief spell of their own and gone but the world still remains the same, asking the same question of Socrates amplified through his students: what is goodness and how can the soul of a nation bettered? Therefore it is only logical to conceive that since them there have been no political philosophers except a few echoes. A political philosopher is a person who permanently changes the way of things. In the case of all political philosophers since Plato whose names were already mentioned here or may be mentioned here hereafter, when the charismatic hallo of their person withdrew from this world, their spell also were gone and everything reverted to their previous positions. Karl Marx was the last in this unbelievably long line. His storming and fuming his head in the British Museum for a quarter century came to nothing. He conceived Marxism as the highest language of the human heart. Will anyone believe that Marxian Communism and Socialism anywhere were not political suppression and biological annihilation? Had Socrates and Plato had access to modern communication means enjoyed by the political philosophers since the times of Sir. Thomas Moore and Francis Bacon, nothing in this world would have remained unchanged.
---------------------------------------------
In reply to Thread: Political philosophy.
06-02-2011, 08:59 PM
24. A fine picture of a Heron, a send-off to a departing human being.
A 'hunched grey shape
'Framed by leaves
With 'lake water behind,
Standing on our
Little point of
Land like a small monk.
In 'a greeen mo'nastery medi-
Tating almost sculpture
E'xcept that it's alive,
'Brooding im'mobile perma-
Nent for half an hour
'A 'blue heron.
'And it oc'curs to me
'That if I were to
'Die at this moment,
That 'picture would ac-
Company me
Wher'ever I 'am going,
For part of the way.
Your lines are now slightly rearranged and recast in the true poetic form to facilitate easy understanding and singing. The lines were skillfully locked by the poet whoever he was, to prevent full appreciation and enjoyment of his poem by dull wits. It was a common delight to poets of exceptional genius. The picture of the meditating and brooding heron on the end of the field, as immobile as a sculpture is going to be the last picture the dying man is taking along with him to wherever he is going. Therefore it has to be presented as if in a mist, at least that is what the poet wants the image to be for- to be seen in a mist. Since the image itself is far from vague, the unclearness can be created only in the meaning and significance of the image. Anyway, it is a fine picture of a heron, presented as a send-off to a departing human being. Now you can try to sing it: If you once successfully sing it, analyzing is nothing for you. Remember the short last line- For part of the way. 'A friend is a person who not only shows us the way but also walks with us part of the way.'
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to Thread: Analyzing the poem "The Last Picture in the World," composed by Canadian poet Alfred Purdy.
06-20-2011, 12:40 AM
25. Up to Three years, a child is in God's custody.
We may often can see little children, if left alone, speak to so many things in his or her babbling indistinct language and smiling at things. If we stealthily go behind them and look for what they are smiling at and whom they are speaking to, we will see nothing particular that would catch our attention. They are speaking the language they have brought with them, and speaking to and laughing with who came along with them. This language of their's vanishes as the child develops caprice. That is why we do not hear or see anything at all. Look at that lovely radiance in the face of all infants; it is a reflection. We mistakenly think that the tiny little bud is speaking to itself which it never will do till it grows up as larger and foul as us. To a child everything has relevance, existence and individual personality-the leaf, the flower, the stone, the soil, the wind, the butterflies and the birds. That is how Nature's presence and conscience moulds attitude in humans. We call it the influence of God's presence. Because grown-up people are strong, they tend to deny the presence of providence. Because children are tender, weak and unpolluted, they need protection which they get from Nature and Providence. Even if we do not teach them about the presence of a God in our mortal words, they do feel such a caring and protective presence around them, such as those given them by their father, mother, big sister and brother. Sometimes they can be heard to be making and singing songs of excellent tunes, a reflection and proof of the civilization of the land from which they are coming. Is it not necessary that such a civilized, ardent sophisticated presence is needed in the Universe? Our very thought that such a presence is needed is the very manifestation of that presence. It is not a secret that the innocent radiance present in the face of all children in this world says farewell to them when they attain puberty, are self-reliant and are able to look after them. This is a very good and meaningful thread. The poster of this thread has asked a very relevant question. But philosophically speaking, asking 'can a child ever know about God if he was not taught about it' is like doubting whether the fish would be knowing about the water surrounding and enveloping it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to Thread: Can a child ever know about God if he was not taught about it?
6-23-2011, 06:37 PM
26. Mankind did not hesitate to sacrifice Long Life for Ultimate Knowledge.
It is the collective knowledge of the society that enables us to know about the existence or non-existence of a God. Because we know about it, we teach our children on those lines. But how did the first person arrive at the idea of the existence of a God? Naturally he thought it himself. Who can deny the assumption that this natural process won't be repeated in history? Anyway, history is nothing but repetition. Therefore it is only natural and logical to assume that, whether we trouble ourselves to teach them or not, children will one day reach the same conclusions as we did. Don't ever even think that they won't mature someday. This gaining Ultimate Knowledge- that was what mankind chose to do in the Garden of Eden at the expense and sacrifice of Eternal Life. By eating from the Tree of Knowledge, mankind was limiting their life span and opening up new vistas of learning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reply to Thread: Can a child ever know about God if he was not taught about it?