/sci/ - Science & Math

no

maybe
I just watched anonymous.
It was pretty cool.
> Ten thousand souls. All listening to the writings of one man--the ideas of one man. That's power

yes

>>6076558

a)

You know, the most striking feature in Shakespeare were not his ideas or his philosophy regarding these he was completely non-original ideas just echoing the long established and popular wisdom and common sense. He never made any radical ideas or original: it was quite simplistic in this regard.

The most important characteristic of Shakespeare, what separates him from all other writers (which puts him sitting alone at the top of the mountain while even others are just geniuses of literature climbing its edges) is his verbal inventiveness, especially its ability to metaphor. Aristotle said in The Poetics that: “the greatest thing by far is to be a master of metaphor. It is the one thing that cannot be learnt from others; and it is also a sign of genius, since a good metaphor implies an intuitive perception of the similarity in dissimilars.”, and Shakespeare was by far the greatest master of metaphor that ever lived.

>>6076558

a)

You know, the most striking feature in Shakespeare were not his ideas or his philosophy: regarding these he was completely non-original; his ideas just echoed the long established wisdom and common sense of the common people. He never created any radical and original new ideas: he was quite simplistic in this regard.

The most important characteristic of Shakespeare, what separates him from all other writers (which puts him sitting alone at the top of the mountain while even others literary genius may already be in the snowy zone, but still just climbing its edges) is his verbal inventiveness, especially his ability with metaphor (being metaphor the true meat, marrow and muscle of poetry). Aristotle said in The Poetics that: “the greatest thing by far is to be a master of metaphor. It is the one thing that cannot be learnt from others; and it is also a sign of genius, since a good metaphor implies an intuitive perception of the similarity in dissimilars.”, and Shakespeare was by far the greatest master of metaphor that ever lived.

>>6076792

b)

His language is the most inventive, beautiful and awe-inspiring in the world. Hi is, by far, the greatest poet of all time. I have read almost all of the English poets, and of the poets of my native language (Portuguese), as well as Spanish poets. I have read the Italians (Leopardi, Dante), the French (I’m a Rimbaud fan), the Germans (Goethe, Heine, Schiller, Hölderin), the Greeks (Homer, Hesiod, Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Sappho, Anacreon, Alcman, Pindar), the Latin (Virgil, Horace, Lucretius, Ovid), the Russians…hell, I have even read the Japanese (Ono no Komachi, Basho, Hitomaro, the folk songs of the kojiki and Man’yoshu), the Chinese (Li Bai and Du Fu) and the Indian (Kalidasa, Tagore, the ancient epics), always searching for the same metaphorical feast and imagistic orgy of Shakespeare’s work, but in vain: nobody has ever done the same with words. Nabokov is right when he says that “The verbal poetical texture of Shakespeare is the greatest the world has known, and is immensely superior to the structure of his plays as plays” and Stephe Booth: “Shakespeare is our most underrated poet. It should not be necessary to say that, but it is. We generally acknowledge Shakespeare’s poetic superiority to other candidates for greatest poet in English, but doing that is comparable to saying that King Kong is bigger than other monkeys. The difference between Shakespeare’s abilities with language and those even of Milton, Chaucer, or Ben Jonson is immense.”. This guy is the greatest master of language of all human history.

>>6076795

c)

Other great characteristic of Shakespeare was his ability to create several different characters, most of them totally alien to his personal experience. There was also his apparent lack of any particular philosophical belief and credo: he expresses several different opinions about life according to the characters who spoke the words or the atmosphere of the play. Most writers write they works trying to convey some general idea or moral (and its no shock to perceive that this idea or moral is most of the time their own vision about the world), but Shakespeare didn’t seem to care about that: he was like a chameleon, changing the colors of his mind according to the body which he impregnated at the moment. He had the poetic character that was described by Keats several years before:

>>6076797

d)

>"As to the poetical Character itself (I mean that sort of which, if I am any thing, I am a Member; that sort distinguished from the wordsworthian or egotistical sublime; which is a thing per se and stands alone) it is not itself - it has no self - it is every thing and nothing - It has no character - it enjoys light and shade; it lives in gusto, be it foul or fair, high or low, rich or poor, mean or elevated - It has as much delight in conceiving an Iago as an Imogen. What shocks the virtuous philosopher, delights the camelion Poet. It does no harm from its relish of the dark side of things any more than from its taste for the bright one; because they both end in speculation. A Poet is the most unpoetical of any thing in existence; because he has no Identity - he is continually in for - and filling some other Body - The Sun, the Moon, the Sea and Men and Women who are creatures of impulse are poetical and have about them an unchangeable attribute - the poet has none; no identity - he is certainly the most unpoetical of all God's Creatures. If then he has no self, and if I am a Poet, where is the Wonder that I should say I would write no more? Might I not at that very instant have been cogitating on the Characters of Saturn and Ops? It is a wretched thing to confess; but is a very fact that not one word I ever utter can be taken for granted as an opinion growing out of my identical nature - how can it, when I have no nature? When I am in a room with People if I ever am free from speculating on creations of my own brain, then not myself goes home to myself: but the identity of every one in the room begins so to press upon me that I am in a very little time annihilated - not only among Men; it would be the same in a Nursery of children"

>>6076800

e)

But there also must be noted that Shakespeare characters are always artificial; they don’t sound like normal people: they are colossal, as if their brains were on steroids. Shakespeare excelled in language, and did not mind sacrificing the verisimilitude and reality in favor of the verbal beauty. If an idea grabbed his mind in the middle of a speech and scene, he was determinate to use that idea, to exhibit that metaphor, even if it was not relevant to the plot or faithful to the character that was speaking, and only for the pleasure and pride of modeling beauty in verses. No one ever spoke like Shakespeare's characters: the human race that he modeled is artificial in this respect: they are as human beings who had took steroids for the mind, who had the brain areas related to language and verbal thinking augmented by some divine touch. Shakespeare makes all humans (even mediocre ones) speak as Gods, as D. H. Lawrence said:

“When I read Shakespeare I am struck with wonder
That such trivial people should muse and thunder
In such lovely language.”

It even seems that some kind of strange metaphorical-parasite have invaded Shakespeare’s brain, laid a multitude of eggs on his crumbs and usurped the synapses of his neurons, in a way that he only could think thorough images, trough metaphor and similes: every fiber and streamer of thought at birth is already mounted by an image, that rides it. In his plays one metaphor tread on the heels of another who has just broke out of its shell, one simile breaths on the neck of another simile that has just been born.

Maybe for the English language. Which really doesn't say all that much.

>>6076805

f)

Moreover, Shakespeare accepted any plots, no matter how fantastical and bizarre, provided they were interesting. He did not care to kill important characters without any scruple, and sure he did not bother to set his stories anywhere in the world and at any time in history, without even analyzing the customs of other peoples or epochs: the important thing was to captivate the attention of public (and finding nice opportunities to forge brilliant metaphors and similes)

Well, as a Coda to this review about Shakespeare, let me talk briefly about his most beautiful metaphorical techniques: the fusion of abstract and concrete language.

The marriage of concrete and abstract language is one of the most powerful tools of a poetical arsenal. Want an example? If concrete and abstract language should not be mixed many of the most glorious passages of Shakespeare (better that almoust anything else in recorded literature) would not exist, such as:

that his virtues
Will plead like angels, trumpet-tongued, against
The deep damnation of his taking-off;
And pity, like a naked newborn babe,
Striding the blast, or heaven’s cherubim, horsed
Upon the sightless couriers of the air,
Shall blow the horrid deed in every eye,
That tears shall drown the wind.

(here, for example, Pity is an abstraction, but is connected with the concrete image of a babe)

Or

By heaven, methinks it were an easy leap
To pluck bright honor from the pale-faced moon,
Or dive into the bottom of the deep,
Where fathom line could never touch the ground,
And pluck up drownèd honor by the locks,
So he that doth redeem her thence might wear
Without corrival all her dignities.
But out upon this half-faced fellowship!

(here the most string passage is that of honor being plucked by its locks; well, Honor is an abstraction, and it certainly had no locks and cant drown).

THE END :)

>>6076792
>>6076795
>>6076797
>>6076800
>>>/lit/
unlike you read these poets in their original language (maybe you did so for Spanish and Portuguese), it's just impossible to make such assertions (and even if, but that's for /lit/).

I speak Deutsch as a second language, I I'm really fluent, but I fail to "get" all the beauty of Goethe poetry.
As a French, I for sure "feel" more the ability of Rimbaud to play with the words and create such a new wonderful language continent than you could ever do. Because that's my native language, and you'll never be as good at it than I (I have a pretty good linguistic education).
I read some Lorca, it was shit. Shame on me. The translation (which was for sure a good one, I don't question this) was not enough. It sounded terrible

Shakespeare was a genius, for sure, but IMO it's completely useless (and quite impossible) to establish a ranking...


>>6076542
Which are your criterion ? It's fucking non-sense... What is "best" ? 1Joule or 1 Kelvin ?

>greatest english writer
>must be best in the world, obviously

you guys.

>>6076837

Yes, I know:>>6076837
>As a French, I for sure "feel" more the ability of Rimbaud to play with the words and create such a new wonderful language continent than you could ever do.

Mfw - :(

>>6076840

The guy that made the long post is not English.

STOP TALKING ABOUT INTELLIGENCE AS IF IT WAS A SINGLE MEASURABLE QUANTITATIVE FEATURE OF THE HUMAN BRAIN

THAT'S NOT HOW BRAIN WORKS

THINK OF AUTISTIC SAVANTS FOR FUCK'S SAKE

>>6076837
>>>>/lit/

I like /lit/, but I also like you guys ;)

Generally I think a lot of the posts I find here are intelligent, sensible, logical and educated.

I like to talk with you about various subjects.

I liked your post, for example.

>>6076840

I am Brazilian: my native language is Portuguese.

>>6076864

You are right.

>>6076873
>Generally I think a lot of the posts I find here are intelligent, sensible, logical and educated.
That says a lot about you.
Also, we hate /lit//fags. Sorry if I sound hostile, just trying to be honest.

>>6076864
By definition intelligence is the quantity measured by an IQ test. This is how it is defined in cognitive science. Your post is as ridiculous as saying "Stop talking about O2 as if it was a molecule. Air is much more complex than that." You completely fail to understand what you're talking about. You value your own uneducated view higher than the accepted scientific definitions. Please either educate yourself or stop posting on the science board.

>>6076878
>By definition intelligence is the quantity measured by an IQ test.
Stopped reading right there.
No it isn't, you don't know what you're talking about.

>>6076878
You're making shit up, there is no agreed upon definition of intelligence in scientific community and IQ is certainly not a good indicator of someone's intelligence.

>>6076878
>By definition intelligence is the quantity measured by an IQ test

Wrong. IQ tests were devised to find the unintelligent. It is useless for the upper tangent of the spectrum.

>>6076864
Fucking thank you. There are many different ways to quantify intelligence and the definition of what a genius is is under constant debate.

No.

Although I do enjoy Shakespeare its just not on the same level, take how they predicted and designed an experiment for the higgs boson for example that sort of thinking is completely alien.

So as much as I like Shakespeare I just don't personally think he is on the same level as Einstein purely because in a sense he created works of art out of words that did not even exist.

No, I don't particularly like Shakespeare.

But yes, there are other writers that are "as smart" as scientists. Goethe, Rimbaud, Sartre (his non-philosophical writings), García Marquez, Bolaño, Holderlin, Houellebecq, Proust, and others.

I've actually read brilliant Law books by brilliant lawyers.

>>6076882
This is how it is defined in cognitive science. Please keep your emotional objections to yourself.

>>6076888
There are a lot of IQ tests specifically designed to distinguish scores in the upper range. You are clearly uninformed.

>>6076889
IQ defines the quantity "intelligence". Your post is as ridiculous as denying any other SI unit.

>>6076890
>There are many different ways to quantify intelligence

No, there are not. Intelligence is defined by IQ. There are other skills which can be quantified, but all of them have their own names and none of them is called "intelligence".

>>6076890
Yeah but in terms of comparing Shakespeare and Einstein you can.

Einstein imagined things on a level of intelligence bordering on insanity, it is hard to explain unless you have done maybe a MSc+ on physics but it was just not only elegant but completely world shattering. Someone with giant IQ and intelligence beyond that of Einstein may have never been able to see what Einstein did because it was in a different realm, its like describing perfectly a color no one has ever seen.
The maths alone was pretty beautiful and elegant.

Shakespeare had a good way with words, if he had written something like 1984 somehow ~400 years ago, he may have been on the same level.

>>6076894
>>6076897
I'm not going to argue with you but I suggest you read up on what IQ tests are and what intelligence means.
Majority of this board can point out how flawed your ideas on these subjects are, don't get so emotionally attached to these views, accept that you COULD be wrong, and try to learn as much as you can.

>>6076877
>That says a lot about you.

I think that's a bit simplistic. Of course there are many bad posts and bad threads here (as in the entire 4chan), but I'd say the average of good posts is higher here than in most places of 4chan.

>>6076877
>Also, we hate /lit//fags.

On the topic of /lit/fags: they are good people. I just do not like their predilection for philosophy; in my opinion few areas of philosophy are real tools for the knowledge of the truth (Logic is one, for example). One of the areas of philosophy that I like are Ethics (how to live a good life?), but I know very well that it is an artificial creation of the human mind: good and bad (and all other values we possess) are fictitious things, so there is no point in wanting to create a universal and immutable ethical theory.
But as I was saying, I do not like their taste for philosophy, because in my opinion the greatest part of philosophy today is nothing but waste of time (once upon a time, when modern science had not yet been born, science and philosophy walked together, but today the division between one and another is very significant). I always say to them: if you want to know the truths about the world, then study physics, mathematics, chemistry and biology.
But people on /lit/ are nice in general. Of course there are assholes there, but this is 4chan: this place is full of trolls and assholes.

>>6076877
>Sorry if I sound hostile, just trying to be honest.

No problem. :)

>>6076903
I am well informed. Please do not project your ignorance onto me. In my post I pointed out the errors in your reasoning. Reread it and see for yourself. I hope it will motivate you to educate yourself on the topic. Good luck!

>>6076892
>I've actually read brilliant Law books by brilliant lawyers.

Hans Kelsen is the best: he had a truly scientific mind.

>>6076904
We don't like them for the exact reason that you said, not because they're assholes.
Half the population on 4chan is composed of assholes, including /sci/, no one cares.

>>6076912
I was raised a Kelsenian (?) but I am more inclined to Rawls. Not because his formulations are "new", "innovative" or "iconoclastic" but because he made a very simple book about a very hard topic ("Justice") and made sense with it. He was somewhat original, clear, concise and interesting on a very rocky topic.

>>6076898
Hegel imagined things on a level of intelligence bordering on insanity, it is hard to explain unless you have done maybe a PhD+ on Hegelian Philosophy but it was just not only elegant but completely world shattering. Someone with giant IQ and intelligence beyond that of Hegel may have never been able to see what Hegel did because it was in a different realm, its like describing perfectly a color no one has ever seen.
The wording alone was pretty beautiful and elegant.

I don't think comparing the quality of the work of artists or scientists is in any way constructive, it's kinda degrading, actually.

>>6076921
>about a very hard topic ("Justice")

The definition of justice is really a complex thing, after all, if human values are artificial creations and do not exist in nature, then it is not possible to formulate an ethical theory that has scientific rigor and accuracy. It's really hard to develop a concept of justice that can overcome this moral vacuum. I know that until today there is no consensus about it. I have heard a lot about John Rawls, but I had never read him carefully. What would you indicate of his work? A Theory of Justice?

As for Kelsen, I like his courage to accept the fact that good and evil, right and wrong are human inventions, and thus any material can be the object of a Legal System (I know that he was not comfortable with this acceptation, but it was what seemed true to him) .

His work on the structuring of the Legal System, however, is even more impressive. He developed a pyramid of Laws, with valuation schemes that allowed a very rigid hierarchy and efficiently; he sculpted the juridical ordering in the same way in which a craftsman polishes a diamond. He was a kind of Legal sculptor .

>>6076795
>Japane
I'm curious, how would you analyse japanese poetry based on translations, considering that a huge part of the symbolism is in their use of ideograms?

>>6076925
Nothing is more amusing than pseudointellectuals with their head so far up their own ass they could make a post like this.

Carrot Top imagined things on a level of intelligence bordering on insanity, it is hard to explain unless you have studied the works of Carrot Top for at least 30 years and hold 5 PhDs, but it was just not only elegant but completely world shattering. Someone with giant IQ and intelligence beyond that of Carrot Top may have never been able to see what Carrot Top did because it was in a different realm, its like describing perfectly a joke no one has ever heard.
The act alone was pretty beautiful and elegant.

If someone is a genius/creates great works it doesn't require a specific education to understand why and appreciate the work fully.

>>6076542

As a non-anglo native speaker, I'd like to say that I've never understood how people would accuse poets and writers of not possibly reaching heights of intelligence usually occupied by the scientists. There are many similarities between their work. The greatest ones study hard for their entire lives to perfect their craft, they spend day and night in deep thought on how to come up with original ideas, they usually enforce lofty standards upon themselves and are reviewed rigorously and critiqued by their peers.

Obviously they differ in their effects on the world; the poet's impact is more in the mind and therefore can't affect the human condition as fundamentally as, say, the internet or modern medicine has.

I'm reading Hamlet - my first experience with mr. Shakespeare - as we speak and I must say that I'm greatly impressed. But I'm not sure that I would be ready to proclaim him the greatest writer in any language. I think it would be very hard to prove that hypothesis.

>>6076973
A Theory of Justice is his main and only "important" work, not because his publications are bad, but because it is in that book that you understand all he has to say in a complete unified package.

I agree there is no ethical theory that can be sustained on am a priori rational analysis (ie that fucking idiot Kant) because you can't derive the must be from the being, hence why I am a Consequentialist (closer to Rule Consequentialism).

As for Kelsen, I was raised a legal positivist, and honestly, years after, I see everyday how flawed his assumptions were. There is no real legitimacy in a grundnorm and neither are the institutions derived from the grundnorm legitimate as long as the system is controlled by humans. It is inherently flawed to think that humans will act neutrally following "the law" when in reality its precisely humans who create and apply the law. Lack of REAL representation, lack of REAL legitimacy in the construction of the "normative building" (real I mean not based on logical assumptions but on the material participation of the citizen in the creation of its social contract) throws me off the wagon. He is basically a Kantian lawyer and suffers form the same epidemic that all Kantians do, evidently false premises that sustain a logical building.

"Morality of angels", "Laws for Angels"

>>6076994
Im not even sure if youre mocking my own mocking post or youre mocking the original worthless and vague post aboutEinstein.

wow what did I do to get such a lengthy response :)

>>6076792
I knew many new phrases were invented by him that are still used today.
>>6076795
> inventive, beautiful and awe-inspiring
inventive I can see.
beautiful and awe-inspiring?
Wasn't one of the love speeches, saying how ugly she was?
> My love is a fever, longing still for that which longer nurseth the disease, in faith I do not love thee with mine eyes for they in thee a thousand errors see; but 'tis my heart, that loves what they despise, who in despite of view, are pleased to dote.
I just find it...funny.
Maybe it's because I'm not a /lit/fag?

> his apparent lack of any particular philosophical belief
this is a good thing?
I always like reading into the author via their works.
Also what about Richard III?

>>6076805
> characters are colossal
Minds are a pretty big place. It's really hard to get that on paper though.
He pretty much solidified many tropes (can't think of the name of a trope of a character).

>>6077025
Neither, please go get a PhD in literature with a focus on self-deprication and sarcasm as shown in the works of Gallagher, maybe then you can understand my post

>>6077041
If you can't make yourself understood on 4chan you got issues, kid. Not our fault you can't write.

>>6077009
>As a non-anglo native speaker, I'd like to say that I've never understood how people would accuse poets and writers of not possibly reaching heights of intelligence usually occupied by the scientists. There are many similarities between their work. The greatest ones study hard for their entire lives to perfect their craft, they spend day and night in deep thought on how to come up with original ideas, they usually enforce lofty standards upon themselves and are reviewed rigorously and critiqued by their peers.

You bring tears to my eyes ;_; Seriously, I liked your post a lot.

>>6077009
>I'm reading Hamlet - my first experience with mr. Shakespeare - as we speak and I must say that I'm greatly impressed. But I'm not sure that I would be ready to proclaim him the greatest writer in any language. I think it would be very hard to prove that hypothesis.

A good book to have a general overview of Shakespeare's verbal and metaphorical power is "Shakespeare's Imagery", by Caroline Spurgeon: she separates and catalogs most of the images of Shakespeare by groups, and the result of this feast of metaphors is extremely pleasurable and impressive.

Thanks again for your post :)

>>6076837
> 1Joule or 1 Kelvin ?
Kelvin. It is base unit
Joule = derived
<span class="math">U=mcT [/spoiler]

>>6077045
I write for people with 150 IQ or higher, there's enough material for retards out there as it is, go pick up a Highlights or Sports Illustrated if you want something your pleb mind can grasp. Guarantee you are one of those people that thinks Carrot Top and Gallagher are washed up comedians, failing to see that their entire career is a deep social commentary on modern society. I feel bad for all the true geniuses out there that are misinterpreted by the masses of 2 digit IQ and won't be appreciated til long after their death, such as Sheakspere (pro fact -he spelled his name many different ways), Da Vinci, etc.

>>6077042
>wow what did I do to get such a lengthy response :)

It is a topic that I really love, and I usually take the opportunities to discuss it with interesting people like you guys (In my routine I don’t have many intellectual friends with which to discuss such things). The post was long because I didn’t have to make it all today: I had several things that I posted before on /lit/ saved in a copy-pasta.

>>6076908
Define intelligence

No. If German or French would have become the 'official' language of the United States, English would now be as irrelevant as German and French are and nobody would have even heard of Shakespeare..

>>6077072
>I write for people with 150 IQ or higher
Yay! Finally someone writes for me.

>>6077081
Intelligence is the quantity measured by an IQ test.

>>6077085
> Intelligence is the quantity measured by an IQ test.
>IQ test is what measure intelligence

So intelligence mean nothing else then ?
That's recursive logic

>>6077094
It's a scientific definition. The quantity is defined by how it is measured. Just like lenght is the quantity measured by rulers. Please take a high school intro to science.

>>6077046

Thanks for your kind comments. I just might check out that book. I'm reading a version of Hamlet annotated by Oxford School so it's not all that hard to follow the language and metaphor. But I try to form my own ideas about the text and I've found a couple annotations, I haven't agreed with or at least think can be interpreted differently. I have some experience with reading old Greek texts and philosophical writings so I don't find Shakespeare as hard to read as I've heard many anglos mention. It's truly wonderful writing, I find.

>>6077100
So intelligence is just a number given by a test ?
So it's nothing to be proud of ?

>>6077113
>So intelligence is just a number given by a test ?
By definition it is. Just like length is just a number given by a ruler.

>So it's nothing to be proud of ?
It is something to be proud of. Just like a tall person can be proud of not being a manlet, a smart person can be proud of not being a retard.

>>6077124
But why would you be proud of a number that come out of an algorithm ?
Also, who decided that this algorithm was the best one to mesure intelligence ? And why ?

>>6077137
>But why would you be proud of a number that come out of an algorithm ?
Because it maks me superior to those who scored lower.

>Also, who decided that this algorithm was the best one to mesure intelligence ? And why ?
Scientists. Because the more we can measure, the more science we can do.

>>6077142
> Because it maks me superior to those who scored lower.
Superior in which way ?

>>6077150
The same way an aesthetic person is superior to an ugly person.

>>6077107

1/2

>I'm reading a version of Hamlet annotated by Oxford School so it's not all that hard to follow the language and metaphor. But I try to form my own ideas about the text

You know , to me there are two main species of literary critics: a) those who try to interpret what the author meant with his text and b) those who analyze the literary techniques used by the author (metaphors and similes creation, versification , metrification , the structuring of dialogue, punctuation, uses and transformation of source material, descriptions, creation of stream of consciousness: style in general).

In my opinion the critics of category (a ) ( which are by far the most abundant and the most famous - Harold Bloom, for example , is one of them ) are generally useless and, in general, pretentious : you have every reason to want to make your own understanding: who are these gentlemen to have the authority to say what the author wanted to convey through his text? If they can discover the meaning of an author’s text, we also can.

As for the critics of category (b), I must say that they are special people: they spend their whole lives doing a strenuous job than earns them no money and no fame, just for the sake of the love they have for the artists who they are analyzing. The reading of such critics should be constant for young writers: there is nothing that favors more the formation of an young author than the analysis of the bowels of the works of the masters (that and also reading and writing a lot and constantly, of course). Unfortunately critics of category (b) are few and little known (even among serious readers). About Shakespeare, I advise (for those who really want to delve into the work of the author, and not so much for the casual reader) to read the following books:

>>6076878

In your tiny way you are totally correct.
But physics has a definition for "power" that is unable to describe the political clout within an organization.
The english word "intellegence" is far wider than the scientific term "intellegence"

>>6077157

2/2

>Shakespeare’s Imagery, by Caroline Spurgeon;
>Shakespeare’s Language, by Frank Kermode;
>Shakespeare’s Metrical Art, by George T. Wright;
>The Development of Shakespeare’s imagery, by Wolfgang Clemen;
>The Poetry of Shakespeare’s Plays, by F.E. halliday;
>Shakespeare’s Uses of The Arts of Language, by Sister Mirian Joseph;
>The Language of Shakespeare’s Plays, by B. Ifor Evans

Also, a rare good book of the (a) kinf of criticism: "Shakespeare", by Mark Van Doren

>>6077159
This is a science board. We use scientific terminology here and we don't care about your colloquial abuse of words.

>>6077153

I smell Zyzz

>>6077153
But your definition of intelligence is anything but meliorative, so why are you superior ? And answer in scientific terms, not with a comparison.

I like O'Henry, pardner.

>>6077165
You smell the rotten, decaying gains of a long-dead fool?

>>6077176

Was being ironic to Anon's aesthetic philosophy.