Don't Study Shakespeare The Anti-Semite...

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher
It's all in how you look at it. Computer science constantly progresses. An idiot looks it as inevitable obsolescence, an intellectual looks at it as a stepping stone to progress.

You also display more profound ignorance. And since I'm feeling generous, I'll tell you why. Computer science is not just about software development. Advances made in computer science are not obsolete. I can develop and discover algorithms and theories that last the test of time. Many fundamental tenants of computer science have been unchanged for decades. More is being added constantly to this knowledge base, and rarely does it "obsolete" prior knowledge, it usually supplements.

The kind of work being done in computer science in terms of artificial intelligence, numerical modeling, etc will not become obsolete. It's a journey of knowledge that we're adding to.

Yes, technological process leading nowhere in particular, none of which actually by itself fulfills the lives of individuals.

The one work being done that you mentioned that may have a significant bearing on discussions of humanity is artificial intelligence. Otherwise, just more bells and whistles.

You seem utterly incapable of understanding my point, so I will try to be generous with you:

Technological progress of any kind increases what humanity is able to do in terms of manipulating the material world. Yet all that technological progress does not address, or even change what it is like to be human, ie. the emotions and thoughts that occupy our minds on a daily basis. Which is why a love story written in completely different social times, under completely different material conditions, can still be copied and retold with minor variation countless times.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
Yes, technological process leading nowhere in particular

There's no point in discussing this with people incapable of understanding the basics.

You may resume your paper pushing.

The one work being done that you mentioned that may have a significant bearing on discussions of humanity is artificial intelligence. Otherwise, just more bells and whistles.

You have no idea just what the hell you're talking about. Computers improve fuel efficiency. Computers assist in surgery. Computers vastly reduce the amount of trees we cut down for paper. Computers are fast-tracking research and are indispensable in the fight against disease and HIV/cancer. Computers are allowing people with disabilities to live better lives. Computers are enabling new forms of art. Computers are facilitating communication that's never been possible before. The list is literally endless.

Computers do so very much, but you don't know a damn thing about it. All you know is you use a computer to surf porn and file paperwork, but that doesn't mean computers aren't transforming your life in more ways than you can realize.

You seem utterly incapable of understanding my point, so I will try to be generous with you:

Technological progress of any kind increases what humanity is able to do in terms of manipulating the material world. Yet all that technological progress does not address, or even change what it is like to be human, ie. the emotions and thoughts that occupy our minds on a daily basis.

Tell that to people with disabilities that computers enable to do things they never thought possible.
Tell that to people like me who were able to endure long-distance relationships because of such technological advancements.

You're getting all artsy-fartsy philosophical so I'm going to put an end to this now. Computers enrich (and extend!) our lives to degrees you are very clearly incapable of comprehending. They enable new degrees of the human condition. They open up new horizons for the human condition. They enrich us to degrees that Shakespeare can't come close to touching.

Is that simple enough for you to understand?

I understand it just fine, the problem is you can't comprehend why I reject it. And the reason I reject it is you don't understand the basics -- computers aren't about creating a timeless piece of art, they're about making our lives better. You don't seem to comprehend the very simple aspect that timeless doesn't mean it's perfect and it doesn't trump continued improvement.

While Shakespeare may be interesting to you, I can think of a lot more people that are interested in what computers can due to fight cancer. And the breakthroughs computers facilitate? Those are actually timeless, GePap.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Asher
Literature played a part in some of the course every year, but it wasn't the pillar of the course.

Used as a teaching tool, or what? Surely there must have been some interconnected relevance to the business of teaching English - otherwise that would have been a rather bizarre course.

Our 12th grade finals (basically used as SATs in Canada) focused more on grammar, structure, and coherence of thought than the underlying topic of literature.

It would be difficult to address the "underlying topic of literature" with standardized testing, so that's a given. "Literature" as such, however, is all about structure and coherence (as well as other things), so I wouldn't say there was any great disconnect there between "literacy" and "literature."

It's just a different style. The writing one does for novels and plays and poetry is very different from what one should use in a technical report or memo.

Edit: In many cases, the wording has to be far more precise and unambiguous as well.

Of course. My point, however, was that studying Shakespeare (whose name I'm more or less using as a proxy for literature in general) is helpful in creating and understanding types of writing apart from "just" plays and poetry.

I couldn't specifically say how much of my writing ability I've learned from Shakespeare, but I feel confident that literature was a critical part of my own development of literacy and comprehension - much as I can't remember what I had for dinner last Wednesday, even though I am very confident it provided me with nourishment (unless it was pizza night, I guess). The writing I do regularly is in no way connected to writing plays, poems, or novels, either. Composition and comprehension are arts and are effectively taught through art; it's not just about what you do for your occupation, but your participation in the social and political world, where ambiguity is not only commonplace but also useful.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
Used as a teaching tool, or what? Surely there must have been some interconnected relevance to the business of teaching English - otherwise that would have been a rather bizarre course.

It's used as a teaching tool. They would pick books kids would find "interesting" so they would actually read it. We'd have a novel to read and then we'd do the bull****ty analysis of the book itself, but it's possible to fail that part and still pass English if your actual English fundamentals were acceptable.

It would be difficult to address the "underlying topic of literature" with standardized testing, so that's a given.

It's not, because it's standardized literature also.

"Literature" as such, however, is all about structure and coherence (as well as other things), so I wouldn't say there was any great disconnect there between "literacy" and "literature."

I disagree. Literature uses sentence structure and grammar and coherence to convey the story, which is the art. You can separate the two easily -- the art just typically provides a medium to get the kids to read. You can also teach literacy with history textbooks, for example...

Of course. My point, however, was that studying Shakespeare (whose name I'm more or less using as a proxy for literature in general) is helpful in creating and understanding types of writing apart from "just" plays and poetry.

I couldn't specifically say how much of my writing ability I've learned from Shakespeare, but I feel confident that literature was a critical part of my own development of literacy and comprehension - much as I can't remember what I had for dinner last Wednesday, even though I am very confident it provided me with nourishment (unless it was pizza night, I guess). The writing I do regularly is in no way connected to writing plays, poems, or novels, either. Composition and comprehension are arts and are effectively taught through art; it's not just about what you do for your occupation, but your participation in the social and political world, where ambiguity is not only commonplace but also useful.

And my point is the art aspect (the story, the nonsense about the 'human condition' that GePap raves about) is just used as a ploy to get the students to read the book to improve their literacy.

The story can be engaging to some people, but it is not the only way to teach literacy. It may not even be the best way, given that Shakespearean English differs from our own and can just be confusing to people.

[GePap]

My God

I was going to try to parcel post, but your post is too absurd and self-righteous to even try. Also, you must have ADD, since even from my early posts I said I did not find Shakespeare entertaining myself.

I am glad you are so in love with your own work, but you clearly still don't get it, nor will you ever. Making lives easier and more comfortable, even longer, still does not once address what it is to be human, what makes us happy, or fulfilled.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
My God

I was going to try to parcel post, but your post is too absurd and self-righteous to even try. Also, you must have ADD, since even from my early posts I said I did not find Shakespeare entertaining myself.

I am glad you are so in love with your own work, but you clearly still don't get it, nor will you ever. Making lives easier and more comfortable, even longer, still does not once address what it is to be human, what makes us happy, or fulfilled.

It's not self-righteous. It's supposed to be a learning experience for you. You have no concept at all how pervasive computers are and how they impact our lives in many ways that are non-obvious. I've personally worked on code that is being used on BlueGene/L in search for a cure for cancer. I've personally worked on code that is being used by ASC Purple to figure out how to safely dispose of radioactive waste. What good is the "human condition" when we all die?

That's just one tiny facet of what they do. They do more than create one-off products that become obsolete, like you assert.

You keep repeating this: We can't be human without art. Blah blah.

I disagree completely. We can be human without studying art.

Wait a second, you say...that wasn't what you said? But if you actually look at what I said, the point that set you guys off was my statement that literacy and mathematics are more important to study than art. The fact that you need to brush up on your literacy skills is now evident.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Sorry, but given that Shakespeare wrote his work, you can only teach him to literate people.

Um? Are you aware that much of his original audience was illiterate or only semi-literate?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
Who would have guessed? I mean, its a field in such demand by functioning societies....

Mhm, by every single engineer on the frickin planet.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Asher
I disagree. Literature uses sentence structure and grammar and coherence to convey the story, which is the art. You can separate the two easily -- the art just typically provides a medium to get the kids to read. You can also teach literacy with history textbooks, for example...

I don't have much to say here - it's simply not true. "The art" is not the story or content. "The art" consists of the way it's told - the way grammar, tone, coherence, language, etc. are deployed to tell a story or convey a meaning. I doubt you could teach more than a very basic literacy with history textbooks, and that's assuming the content and language of a history textbook even appealed to students enough to inspire them to learn it.

We talk about ourselves all the time; we explain what happened and what we think will happen. We produce narratives of ourselves, and even our countries. We argue with people (on the internet!) and try to illustrate a situation and illuminate a point (though purely technical language can be helpful there). This is all basically descriptive storytelling. You might call this too abstract or too "human condition-y" but it's quite true - social and political interaction, in general, have far more to do with literature than they do with technical writing, your occupation notwithstanding.

And my point is the art aspect (the story, the nonsense about the 'human condition' that GePap raves about) is just used as a ploy to get the students to read the book to improve their literacy.

I don't think you'll find many people that agree with you, and I think if you quizzed English teachers and students you would find that it was objectively false. This is a ploy only insofar as school is a "ploy" to educate.

The story can be engaging to some people, but it is not the only way to teach literacy. It may not even be the best way, given that Shakespearean English differs from our own and can just be confusing to people.

It's not the only way, but it's an important way. I'm sure you advanced your own literacy with books you read outside the classroom, too (unless you really only read technical stuff). Different people have different tastes, to be sure, but there is a reason it's held in such high regard and that's not a "ploy."

[Asher]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
I don't have much to say here - it's simply not true. "The art" is not the story or content. "The art" consists of the way it's told - the way grammar, tone, coherence, language, etc. are deployed to tell a story or convey a meaning. I doubt you could teach more than a very basic literacy with history textbooks, and that's assuming the content and language of a history textbook even appealed to students enough to inspire them to learn it.

Literacy comes down to being able to read and write coherent sentences. I don't see why novels accomplish this while history textbooks don't.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Asher
Literacy comes down to being able to read and write coherent sentences. I don't see why novels accomplish this while history textbooks don't.

Then either you haven't read enough novels or you haven't read enough history textbooks.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Cyclotron

Then either you haven't read enough novels or you haven't read enough history textbooks.

That still doesn't explain it. You are communicating using the same language, why is one so much better than the other?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
It's no accident that English class is both where you learn Shakespeare and develop literacy.

Isn't it? ISTM a lot of our educational system derives from times when education was the province of the upper classes.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Isn't it? ISTM a lot of our educational system derives from times when education was the province of the upper classes.

"ISTM" -- praise Jesus, Molly, we have another literary genius inventing words right here on Apolyton!

(It Seems To Me? -- Kids these days, so smart, Shakespeare wouldn't stand a chance!)

[Kuciwalker]