Free will, freedom from what?

[Immanuel Can]

That was well quoted by you, Immanuel Cant. And here is the same idea by the best wordsmith :

Tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.



Remembering that human lifespan is also a measure of time.

I did say that one definition is that "time is the measure of our proximity to death," I believe. But it's a cynical and rather narrow definition...certainly not complete in itself.

It's not bad, though, to remind ourselves of the context of this soliloquy.

This is the utterance Shakespeare wrote for a corrupt and murderous tyrant, who, at the end of his failed reign, has come to realize that everything he was pursuing was empty. Bereft of friends, his wife dead, his subjects trying to murder him,and having made a recent trip to depend on witches for wisdom, he's arrived a point where he's prepared to "try to the last" his decisions. As he said earlier, "I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that, should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er" (III. 4.136–8) He's had it with life, with ambition, with everything.

He's not acutally a spokesman for all humanity, or for all experience. He is, really, a representation of the self-willed despot, the man who thinks he can control his own destiny, and that no moral bounds can be allowed. He's been a pre-Nietzschean, really: and he has no sense of duty to man and no relationship to God. Like Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment, he banished morality, took his own life in his hands, and then has found that it all went through his fingers.

It's a great lesson. But to understand it, we need to keep his words in the context for which Shakespeare designed them, do we not?

By all means remember the context of the soliloque as quoted, but you have judged him ad hominem .

Not a bit. He's not a man, a "hominem". He's a fictional character. I can have no particular opinion of him as a person, since he isn't one. Rather, what I have to do is take what Shakespeare gives me to know about him, which is exactly what I have done. I think I'm being very faithful to Shakespeare's intention in my analysis.

But literary figures can be judged differently, depending on what you select. If you believe that Macbeth is a common man, or a beloved monarch, or something even more extraordinary, like a postmodern housewife from Dallas, then all I can say is that I think you've left Shakespeare's intention completely behind. I would rather stay with the character Shakespeare has invited us to confront.

Macbeth, like most every on else, made a tragically bad choice but was nonetheless capable of having a wise idea.

He was only capable of the "ideas" Shakespeare wrote for the character. Unlike human beings, he had no potentialities outside of the narrative. But is his idea "wise," or is it only "wise-given-the-set-of-circumstances-of-Macbeth? You might find an echo of his words in your own experience, but others, myself included, only recognize the shadow of unfortunate others in his words; we don't live there, nor do we believe he's right, nor do we experience his despair. But we admire Shakespeare's grasp of the human condition of despair, though we no longer feel it.

[Immanuel Can]

Moreover, Immanuel, and I quote you, [I did say that one definition is that "time is the measure of our proximity to death," I believe. But it's a cynical and rather narrow definition...certainly not complete in itself.]

That is not cynical at all but is a matter of fact. Finality is an inevitable fact of life and when there is no finality what you have is eternity.

Yes. Then you have eternity. You are right.

But what if, like Macbeth, you have NO sense of eternity? What if all you can see is death and consumption by worms? What if every dream you've ever had, everything you've ever felt, every bit of love and sorrow, all the rich tapestry of your life, for better or worse, is doomed to vapourize with your imminent death?

Then you might indeed call life a "brief candle," and "a tale told by a fool...signifying nothing."

But what if you're wrong? What if there is an eternity, and one to be had by you? Then how the words transform, going from sage reflection to fallacious and fatal self-resignation. And so we might read Macbeth quite differently, depending on whether we see him as ultimately made wise, or only half so -- wise, in that he knows the emptiness of self-willed life, but tragically blind to the better life and eternity he might have had, had he been not so full of self, and not so fond of witches (including his wife, who has been called "the super-witch" of Macbeth).

[Belinda]

I did say that one definition is that "time is the measure of our proximity to death," I believe. But it's a cynical and rather narrow definition...certainly not complete in itself.

It's not bad, though, to remind ourselves of the context of this soliloquy.

This is the utterance Shakespeare wrote for a corrupt and murderous tyrant, who, at the end of his failed reign, has come to realize that everything he was pursuing was empty. Bereft of friends, his wife dead, his subjects trying to murder him,and having made a recent trip to depend on witches for wisdom, he's arrived a point where he's prepared to "try to the last" his decisions. As he said earlier, "I am in blood / Stepped in so far, that, should I wade no more, / Returning were as tedious as go o'er" (III. 4.136–8) He's had it with life, with ambition, with everything.

He's not acutally a spokesman for all humanity, or for all experience. He is, really, a representation of the self-willed despot, the man who thinks he can control his own destiny, and that no moral bounds can be allowed. He's been a pre-Nietzschean, really: and he has no sense of duty to man and no relationship to God. Like Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment, he banished morality, took his own life in his hands, and then has found that it all went through his fingers.

It's a great lesson. But to understand it, we need to keep his words in the context for which Shakespeare designed them, do we not?

By all means remember the context of the soliloque as quoted, but you have judged him ad hominem .

Not a bit. He's not a man, a "hominem". He's a fictional character. I can have no particular opinion of him as a person, since he isn't one. Rather, what I have to do is take what Shakespeare gives me to know about him, which is exactly what I have done. I think I'm being very faithful to Shakespeare's intention in my analysis.

But literary figures can be judged differently, depending on what you select. If you believe that Macbeth is a common man, or a beloved monarch, or something even more extraordinary, like a postmodern housewife from Dallas, then all I can say is that I think you've left Shakespeare's intention completely behind. I would rather stay with the character Shakespeare has invited us to confront.

Macbeth, like most every on else, made a tragically bad choice but was nonetheless capable of having a wise idea.

He was only capable of the "ideas" Shakespeare wrote for the character. Unlike human beings, he had no potentialities outside of the narrative. But is his idea "wise," or is it only "wise-given-the-set-of-circumstances-of-Macbeth? You might find an echo of his words in your own experience, but others, myself included, only recognize the shadow of unfortunate others in his words; we don't live there, nor do we believe he's right, nor do we experience his despair. But we admire Shakespeare's grasp of the human condition of despair, though we no longer feel it.

Fiction is worthy when the characters and events are true to human life. Jesus himself taught about human life by way of the fictional persons and events in his parables.

[Immanuel Can]

By all means remember the context of the soliloque as quoted, but you have judged him ad hominem .

Not a bit. He's not a man, a "hominem". He's a fictional character. I can have no particular opinion of him as a person, since he isn't one. Rather, what I have to do is take what Shakespeare gives me to know about him, which is exactly what I have done. I think I'm being very faithful to Shakespeare's intention in my analysis.

But literary figures can be judged differently, depending on what you select. If you believe that Macbeth is a common man, or a beloved monarch, or something even more extraordinary, like a postmodern housewife from Dallas, then all I can say is that I think you've left Shakespeare's intention completely behind. I would rather stay with the character Shakespeare has invited us to confront.

Macbeth, like most every on else, made a tragically bad choice but was nonetheless capable of having a wise idea.

He was only capable of the "ideas" Shakespeare wrote for the character. Unlike human beings, he had no potentialities outside of the narrative. But is his idea "wise," or is it only "wise-given-the-set-of-circumstances-of-Macbeth? You might find an echo of his words in your own experience, but others, myself included, only recognize the shadow of unfortunate others in his words; we don't live there, nor do we believe he's right, nor do we experience his despair. But we admire Shakespeare's grasp of the human condition of despair, though we no longer feel it.

Fiction is worthy when the characters and events are true to human life. Jesus himself taught about human life by way of the fictional persons and events in his parables.

Fiction and parables are somewhat distinct. A pure fiction is entertainment or deception, and thus, either way, not intended to be true. A parable is fictive in literal meaning, but truthful and wise in metaphorical signification.

[Belinda]

Not a bit. He's not a man, a "hominem". He's a fictional character. I can have no particular opinion of him as a person, since he isn't one. Rather, what I have to do is take what Shakespeare gives me to know about him, which is exactly what I have done. I think I'm being very faithful to Shakespeare's intention in my analysis.

But literary figures can be judged differently, depending on what you select. If you believe that Macbeth is a common man, or a beloved monarch, or something even more extraordinary, like a postmodern housewife from Dallas, then all I can say is that I think you've left Shakespeare's intention completely behind. I would rather stay with the character Shakespeare has invited us to confront.


He was only capable of the "ideas" Shakespeare wrote for the character. Unlike human beings, he had no potentialities outside of the narrative. But is his idea "wise," or is it only "wise-given-the-set-of-circumstances-of-Macbeth? You might find an echo of his words in your own experience, but others, myself included, only recognize the shadow of unfortunate others in his words; we don't live there, nor do we believe he's right, nor do we experience his despair. But we admire Shakespeare's grasp of the human condition of despair, though we no longer feel it.

Fiction is worthy when the characters and events are true to human life. Jesus himself taught about human life by way of the fictional persons and events in his parables.

Fiction and parables are somewhat distinct. A pure fiction is entertainment or deception, and thus, either way, not intended to be true. A parable is fictive in literal meaning, but truthful and wise in metaphorical signification.

According to the tenets of literary criticism fiction may be true to human life, or it may be mere entertainment. Obviously the parables of Jesus are true to human life although somewhat dated as to decor.
It really is rewarding to regard The Bible as literature instead of magic book

[Immanuel Can]

According to the tenets of literary criticism...

You've got a "Bible of Literary Criticism" somewhere?

[Fairy]

What if there is an eternity, and one to be had by you?

Eternity is a measurement of time and belongs to the realm of mental ideas within the artificial dream of separation in space time duality.

Time that can be measured doesn’t exist.. except as imaginary.

[Belinda]

According to the tenets of literary criticism...

You've got a "Bible of Literary Criticism" somewhere?

I believe there are , perhaps unwritten, rules of lit crit. But Academia as it is today is only tradition founded at the dawn of the scientific and philosophical enlightenment.

[Immanuel Can]

What if there is an eternity, and one to be had by you?

Eternity is a measurement of time...

Strictly speaking, it's not a "measurement" at all. Just as ∏ (pi) isn't a "measurement," neither is eternity. "Measuring" is always finite. ∏ and eternity are infinite and unspecifiable. Moreover, eternity is not "time," which is also finite. It's better described as a "relation beyond time."

But let that be. The question is still needs to be asked, obviously.

[Immanuel Can]

According to the tenets of literary criticism...

You've got a "Bible of Literary Criticism" somewhere?

I believe there are , perhaps unwritten, rules of lit crit. But Academia as it is today is only tradition founded at the dawn of the scientific and philosophical enlightenment.

Hmmm...well, I know a ton about lit. crit., but I've never found that rule book.

[Fairy]

What if there is an eternity, and one to be had by you?

Eternity is a measurement of time...

Strictly speaking, it's not a "measurement" at all. Just as ∏ (pi) isn't a "measurement," neither is eternity. "Measuring" is always finite. ∏ and eternity are infinite and unspecifiable. Moreover, eternity is not "time," which is also finite. It's better described as a "relation beyond time."

But let that be. The question is still needs to be asked, obviously.

Except there is no one asking the question.

If there is such a one who is asking, who is that, is that a finite being, or an infinite being. And if it's a finite being then the idea that a finite being can know anything about an eternity that is in relation to a beyond time, is absurd.

But if it's an infinite being, then what need does this one have to ask (if) questions, about what is already the case, which would also be an absurd thing to do.

[Immanuel Can]

Eternity is a measurement of time...

Strictly speaking, it's not a "measurement" at all. Just as ∏ (pi) isn't a "measurement," neither is eternity. "Measuring" is always finite. ∏ and eternity are infinite and unspecifiable. Moreover, eternity is not "time," which is also finite. It's better described as a "relation beyond time."

But let that be. The question is still needs to be asked, obviously.

Except there is no one asking the question.

Well, me...and I think you could ask it, too.

[Fairy]

What if there is an eternity, and one to be had by you?

Eternity is a measurement of time...

Strictly speaking, it's not a "measurement" at all. Just as ∏ (pi) isn't a "measurement," neither is eternity. "Measuring" is always finite. ∏ and eternity are infinite and unspecifiable. Moreover, eternity is not "time," which is also finite. It's better described as a "relation beyond time."

But let that be. The question is still needs to be asked, obviously.

The idea there is a timeless eternity existing as an (if) uncertainty, that is not a measurement, is by definition, still a measurement here in time.

As there is no such concept as a none-existing measurement, there's either measurement or there isn't measurement...but never is there a none-existing measurement, because the concept 'measurement' is simply known now. And that which is claimed to be known now, can never be unknown.

quote-time-is-the-most-undefinable-yet-paradoxical-of-things-the-past-is-gone-the-future-is-charles-caleb-colton-51-84-31.jpg

[Fairy]

Strictly speaking, it's not a "measurement" at all. Just as ∏ (pi) isn't a "measurement," neither is eternity. "Measuring" is always finite. ∏ and eternity are infinite and unspecifiable. Moreover, eternity is not "time," which is also finite. It's better described as a "relation beyond time."

But let that be. The question is still needs to be asked, obviously.

Except there is no one asking the question.

Well, me...and I think you could ask it, too.

You need to think backwards, to a time when you did not exist, and that will be who is asking the question now, apparently.
Or have you always existed, and if so, why the need to ask about the (if) uncertainty of eternity for you?

No one is asking a question, and yet, even though it does appear to be a 'me' or a 'you' asking a question; is still no one appearing to ask a question.
How so? think back to the time before you were born, that's who is asking the question now. Who's really asking? A finite appearance? or Infinity itself?

[Fairy]

eternity is not "time," which is also finite.

What is the difference between eternity and time - when it's obvious that the past is gone and the future has not come?

''The infinite, unmoving present is thus like the origin or source of eternity''

Simply, the same one love action dreaming difference where there is none.