If I was asked to objectively prove that Shakespeare's works aren't shit, how can I do it? The keyword here is objectively. I intuitevly feel that his works are great, but would like to be able to pinpoint the objective qualities that actually make it great.

File: 98 KB, 402x402, William-Shakespeare-194895-1-402.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:18:15 2012 No.3301463 [Reply] [Original]

If I was asked to objectively prove that Shakespeare's works aren't shit, how can I do it?

The keyword here is objectively. I intuitevly feel that his works are great, but would like to be able to pinpoint the objective qualities that actually make it great.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:20:14 2012 No.3301471 Objectivity? Fact? Goodness me, how intimidating.

Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:24:14 2012 No.3301481

>>3301471
>>3301471

If it is subjective, then why is it considered a great piece of literature instead of leaving it to each person to decide for themselves?

Don't get me wrong, Shakespeare is great, and this isn't about Shakespeare himself, but about works of literature we consider great.

Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:24:14 2012 No.3301482

Grab a handful of your own poo, and grab a book of Shakespeare's complete works, drop them both on your friend's, and ask him to categorize.

You've objectively proven Shakespeare's works are not shit. Really, you still haven't, though, depending on how we mean objective.

In any case, quality is not objective, there's no way to prove that something is good objectively, because quality is inherently subjective. Read "Of the Standard of Taste" by Hume, see what you can glean from that.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:25:14 2012 No.3301487 >>3301463 are you in high school or something?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:27:14 2012 No.3301493 >>3301481 Also, that 'intuitive' quality? That's an effect of intersubjectivity.

Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:49:14 2012 No.3301560

He was trying to write for the plays common and uneducated folk of his time to enjoy while still making his plays sophisticated enough that the upper class would enjoy his works for their sophistry as well.
The fact that people are still able to enjoy his works today rather than be so bored as to try to count how many jokes he put into them should prove sufficiently that his works are at the least not complete shit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 30 22:52:14 2012 No.3301579 >>3301463 >prove a negative No.

Anonymous Sun Dec 30 23:01:14 2012 No.3301626

>>3301463
There is no way to objectively prove it, it's entirely subjective. However, for determining "great" works of literature, the best way I've found is looking for works that have "stood the test of time," works that have remained relevant and are generally well liked. In those terms, Shakespeare's works are the greatest in the English language.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature