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

[Ecthy]

I think his point is rather that at any time it is more useful to be learned at the specific utile techniques of that time rather than in supposedly eternal arts. His point is legit.

edit - this was posted in answer to GePap.

I was so good in maths and sciences that I got bored, so I picked the field I'm in now. I'd never tell anyone what choice to make or judge them based on their choice

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Asher

Sure. You'd be surprised how little most 10 year old actors make and how much 10 year old computer wizkids can make. I was making a pretty penny at 10 fixing computers for people and eventually getting into website coding. Moreso than your typical 10 year old actor who shoots the odd commercial for Frosted Flakes.

How much you make?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Dauphin


How much you make?

I'm not saying now, and when I did my first webpages I cleared $10,000 in a year doing just 4 company websites.

Granted, it'd be a LOT harder to land that now since the web is a known quantity...but that's why you gotta be on the cutting edge.

Here's a counterexample:
How many 23 year old actors have a net worth > $1B like the Facebook founder?

[Cyclotron]

The point I tried to make briefly is simply that I don't think it's possible to disentangle "literature" from "literacy." You can't take the art out of writing without removing its functionality as well. Literacy is about more than rote memorization of SAT words and proper apostrophe placement. Being able to write clearly, concisely, and elegantly - whether you're writing a play or an owner's manual - is an art, not a science. Shakespeare was a particularly talented writer; not just a talented artist, but a writer. This is why you don't just read his stuff in drama class, but in English too - through exposure to the giants of English literature, you are supposed to acquire an understanding of what good writing is and further develop your own composition and comprehension.

It's no accident that English class is both where you learn Shakespeare and develop literacy. They are part and parcel of a comprehensive understanding of the English language. I'm not saying Shakespeare is specifically mandatory - the same might be accomplished by other works of literature - but such is the value and artfulness of Shakespeare, that despite all the works of English literature since his death he's still thought of as among the best (some here might think "the best").

[Asher]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
The point I tried to make briefly is simply that I don't think it's possible to disentangle "literature" from "literacy." You can't take the art out of writing without removing its functionality as well.

Yes, you can. It is called technical writing, and there are courses on it. I took several myself.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Asher

Here's a counterexample:
How many 23 year old actors have a net worth > $1B like the Facebook founder?

Ooh, I think I know this one. Is it 17?

Or am I getting that confused with something else....

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Asher

Yes, you can. It is called technical writing, and there are courses on it. I took several myself.

Technical writing is pretty dull though. Or maybe it's because the reports I write and read are usually for legal purposes.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Asher
Yes, you can. It is called technical writing, and there are courses on it. I took several myself.

When in your academic life did you take these technical writing courses?

[GePap]

Originally posted by Asher

So maybe you shouldn't have tried to use it as an example, 'cause it backfired.

You brought up Google, not me. You must have ADD.

Listen -- what computer scientists have done for society in the past 50 years FAR surpasses what any artist has done for society in the past 50 years. A lot of people such as yourself may not be capable of understanding it, but that doesn't mean it's not true.

It's not about the specific product, GePap, it never has been. It's about the transformation of society, and as much as you may hate it, computer scientists have transformed society before your eyes and you don't even know it. That's your problem.

What do you know of society at large!?!? Do you have any idea how people outide of your social class live?

Given that I only "know" you through computers, I am more than well aware of what impact computer technology has had on my life. It certainly has been large, but then the changes have been less than comparable periods of technological change, like at the turn of the century, with the mass introduction of electricity and motor vehicles.

And of course, the importance of art has nothing to do with societal change. In fact, it has everything to do with the fact that all the economic and technological change in the world does not actually change the human condition, ie., what it is to be human, which is what art expresses.

So in 50 years, we won't be teaching kids literacy and math? That's the point of the discussion, which you clearly forgot...

Sorry, but given that Shakespeare wrote his work, you can only teach him to literate people. How then can teaching art get in the way of teaching literacy?? What the **** in the OP had anything to do with those girls not learning to be literate?

You seem to think it's about a longevity pissing contest. Shakespeare never changes and will likely still be read in the future, so to you that proves its utility to society.

To me, Shakespeare bores 90% of kids to death and teaches the other 10% of kids how to be pompous asses online by quoting it all the time to sound intelligent. On the other hand, kids who learn computer science go on to transform society more in 10 years than Shakespeare has done in 400.

To repeat what I said earlier, art is about our shared humanity. The work that computer scientist does, even if it is remembered by anyone later, will eventually be obselete, and any social change they might have brought about will also change, perhaps to be completely undone.

but Shakespeares stories will still be relevant to what it is to be a human being.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Cyclotron

When in your academic life did you take these technical writing courses?

Technically it started in elementary school with the study of grammar and structure.

I revisited it yearly. You learn about block letters, essay structure, paragraph structure, sentence structure, etc. In university I took several very formal technical writing courses as well that undid some of the damage of my literary courses.

[Asher]

Originally posted by GePap
You brought up Google, not me. You must have ADD.

I realize this. I brought up Google because it supported my point. You then tried to use it against me but it backfired when you displayed you had no idea how they work.

What do you know of society at large!?!? Do you have any idea how people outide of your social class live?

What kind of idiotic comment is this...

Computers affect everyone, regardless of social class. You seem to be making an ad hominem attack, which I know you wouldn't do, right?

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

Not true, you can watch Shakespearean plays (and movies!).

How then can teaching art get in the way of teaching literacy??

Who made this point? Wait, what's that? No one? Another strawman from GePap? Impossible! He's never used a logical fallacy in his entire tenure here!

To repeat what I said earlier, art is about our shared humanity. The work that computer scientist does, even if it is remembered by anyone later, will eventually be obselete, and any social change they might have brought about will also change, perhaps to be completely undone.

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.

but Shakespeares stories will still be relevant to what it is to be a human being.

I'm sorry bud, but you've chosen the wrong tree to bark up. Shakespeare is "timeless" entertainment. It'll probably be read forever by children in some form or another. It can even be used as a tool to encourage literacy by giving children something to read and comprehend. This is very true. But what is the point?

Is your only point the specific longevity of specific implementations of some kind of device (literary or practical?) If so, that's extraordinarily short-sighted, and exactly what I'd expect from someone like you.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Asher
Technically it started in elementary school with the study of grammar and structure.

I revisited it yearly. You learn about block letters, essay structure, paragraph structure, sentence structure, etc. In university I took several very formal technical writing courses as well that undid some of the damage of my literary courses.

1) At what point did your classes entirely stop using literature as a teaching aid - that is to say, any book that is not a textbook? At your University?

2) Perhaps I missed this from earlier in the conversation, but what "damage" do you think your literary courses did to you?

[Cyclotron]

Shakespeare is "timeless" entertainment... It can even be used as a tool to encourage literacy by giving children something to read and comprehend. This is very true. But what is the point?

Uh, what? Didn't you just state the point?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
1) At what point did your classes entirely stop using literature as a teaching aid - that is to say, any book that is not a textbook? At your University?

In grades 1-12, we had sections of the course with no literature where we studies English as a grammar and a language, as well as structures of things such as letters. Literature played a part in some of the course every year, but it wasn't the pillar of the 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.

In University I took strict technical writing courses.

2) Perhaps I missed this from earlier in the conversation, but what "damage" do you think your literary courses did to you?

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.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Cyclotron


Uh, what? Didn't you just state the point?

Yes, but it's not GePap's. He keeps harping about how since people won't use Word 2007 in 50 years and they still will read Shakespeare, this has some kind of impact on the importance of the innovation.