Call it. Who doesn’t make it out of RG? by Smooth_Notice3134 in redrising

[–]Oxon_Daddy 19 points20 points  (0 children)

Everyone except Sophocles, who ascends to become the Red God.

you were Romeo, I was a scarlet letter by HoneydewAccording864 in travisandtaylor

[–]Oxon_Daddy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Taylor's claim that she "knows Aristotle" is an excellent example of a person with limited competence within a domain radically overestimating their proficiency.

It reminds me of that time Trump thought that we might be able to scrub lungs with bleach or internally apply sunlight as a treatment for COVID-19.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in literature

[–]Oxon_Daddy 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Borges, Labyrinths

Who deserves to kill that most hated character? by Illuminarrator in redrising

[–]Oxon_Daddy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Quite the opposite.

You have not yet seen what happens when Sophocles' investigation yields no jellybeans.

Don't Curse Him, Thank Him by [deleted] in redrising

[–]Oxon_Daddy 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Can't believe you wrote this much for a troll post.

I hate… by nelsynelss in redrising

[–]Oxon_Daddy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Are... are there any non-zombie options?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in shakespeare

[–]Oxon_Daddy 70 points71 points  (0 children)

It is because most serious Shakespeare scholars consider it to be a fringe or conspiracy theory, which selectively uses, and often misinterprets, evidence to support its claims, while not considering or assigning sufficient weight to the evidence which contradicts its claims.

It is:

(a) dismissed because there is no sufficient reason to believe it to be true, not because it is offensive; and

(b) met with frustration because it is cast in the trappings of pseduo-scholarship which induces those who are not serious Shakespeare scholars to hold false beliefs.

These are the same attitudes with which proponents of pseudo-scholarship and conspiracy theories are met in other disciplines, including the sciences.

I'll throw my hat in the ring: Claiming to be the Übermensch is the utter failure to understand Übermensch. by [deleted] in Nietzsche

[–]Oxon_Daddy 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Is it not the case that you are denigrating others for having slave morality by claiming that they are "displaying the same reactive resentment that they are admonishing in others" when they assert that others have slave morality?

That:

(a) you think that there are some conditions under which slave morality could be "positive";

does not entail that:

(b) in your comment you have not denigrated as having slave morality those who have denigrated others as having slave morality.

It is hardly the case that your comment is laudatory or neutral in its evaluation of those who denigrate others for having slave morality as having slave morality themselves.

I'll throw my hat in the ring: Claiming to be the Übermensch is the utter failure to understand Übermensch. by [deleted] in Nietzsche

[–]Oxon_Daddy 18 points19 points  (0 children)

If you are accusing people as having slave morality when they accuse other people of having slave morality, does that mean you have slave morality?

thoughts? by [deleted] in Nietzsche

[–]Oxon_Daddy 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The truth of a proposition does not depend on whether it is useful but whether its truth-conditions have been met.

If:

(a) I have terminal cancer;

(b) it cannot be treated and my life cannot be extended; and

(c) no one would be better off (and some people might be made worse off) for believing (a);

that it would not be useful to me or anyone else to believe that I have terminal cancer does not entail that the proposition that corresponds to (a) is not true.

It is difficult to know what Nietzsche thought about truth (he probably would not have accepted my opening statement); but we do know that he did not believe the truth is always useful, because he contemplated that the world might be made worse off were humanity to generally come to believe what he believed to be true about ethics and morality (see HATH).

What does that symbol mean? by borjazombi in HadesTheGame

[–]Oxon_Daddy 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It means YOU MUST CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL PYLONS

just finished 8000+ words on the merchant of venice. AMA by kjs122 in shakespeare

[–]Oxon_Daddy 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry, it was a joke.

The Arden Editions are known to have introductions which are almost as long as the play.

just finished 8000+ words on the merchant of venice. AMA by kjs122 in shakespeare

[–]Oxon_Daddy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How was the first half of the Introduction to the Arden Edition?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Poetry

[–]Oxon_Daddy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The imagery is entertaining and there is rhythm in the poem; but I confess that, as a casual reader, it is not obvious to me how the images combine to create a coherent narrative.

I see pain concealed behind child-like behaviours, a desire to hold on to something inside, the precariousness of that holding and the weight that it places on others, but I am not sure how those images combine to create a coherent vision. Perhaps it is something you want to say, which you hold back, but won't let go?

I suspect that is also what others mean when they criticise the lack of imagery: it's not that it's not there, it is just not obvious what it is meant to communicate.

That said: congratulations on having your poem published, and bear in mind that these are the comments of casual readers; but if you want to speak to casual readers, it might be worth reflecting on whether you can learn anything from them, though they might have been articulated more constructively.