Philosophy Now Forum

No m'boy. This studies I am engaged in, and the topics that interest me extremely, are ones that I devote myself to. I examine a lot of material and read as much as I can. Among them Huxley wrote an interesting - though short - essay on Shakespeare's religiousness, his Christianity. It was I think the last one he ever wrote.

The last things to come out of a person's mouth likely come from their heart and it has a certain force and power. I remembered that he quote from Measure For Measure and I used it to communicate an idea to you ... that sailed over your head, as most do.

I'm sure it was a great school you went to though ...

I do not know what to make of Huxley's 'California Mysticism' (or all of it).

He wrote: "We are all well on the way to an existential religion of mysticism." But with this I am inclined to think similarly.

Shakespeare and Religion.

Dalek Prime wrote:I think the question should be, What purpose should religion serve?

You can always run your own thread on that question.

PhilX

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:No m'boy. This studies I am engaged in, and the topics that interest me extremely, are ones that I devote myself to. I examine a lot of material and read as much as I can. Among them Huxley wrote an interesting - though short - essay on Shakespeare's religiousness, his Christianity. It was I think the last one he ever wrote.

The last things to come out of a person's mouth likely come from their heart and it has a certain force and power. I remembered that he quote from Measure For Measure and I used it to communicate an idea to you ... that sailed over your head, as most do.

I'm sure it was a great school you went to though ...

I do not know what to make of Huxley's 'California Mysticism' (or all of it).

He wrote: "We are all well on the way to an existential religion of mysticism." But with this I am inclined to think similarly.

Shakespeare and Religion.

Obviously you don't know the ORIGINAL context of the remark, because you are not as well educated as you pretend to be. Where did you get the quote - off the back of a cereal packet?

You are a great example of an actor strutting on the stage signifying nothing.

Hard to get out from under that one ...

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:Hard to get out from under that one ...

It ought to be enough to say that Measure for Measure is a fictional drama and the words spoken by the characters need be understood within the context of the play.
Have you seen it. It's not one often shown.

As your words must be comprehended within the context of your play ...

No, never saw it performed. Aside from reading I rely on videos. I live in South America.

To change the subject: Have you by chance seen the RSC (BBC) version of Hamlet? with David Tennant and Patrick Stewart? I thought it was very good.

Though we surely have sworn eternal hatred until the very sun in Heaven burns out, any recommended Shakespeare productions on video will be well received and - with my pull - may result in some points tocked up for your long-off but promised redemption.

Philosophy Explorer wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:I think the question should be, What purpose should religion serve?

You can always run your own thread on that question.

PhilX

So I've been informed.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:As your words must be comprehended within the context of your play ...

No, never saw it performed. Aside from reading I rely on videos. I live in South America.

To change the subject: Have you by chance seen the RSC (BBC) version of Hamlet? with David Tennant and Patrick Stewart? I thought it was very good.

Though we surely have sworn eternal hatred until the very sun in Heaven burns out, any recommended Shakespeare productions on video will be well received and - with my pull - may result in some points tocked up for your long-off but promised redemption.

I'm pleased to say that I saw Tennent's Hamlet live in Stratford Upon Avon. I've also seen Stewart's Macbeth, and Ian Mckellan's King Lear, also in Stratford. At one point when Lear was at his lowest they managed to contrive it to rain on stage upon the shivering Lear who stood stark-bollock naked. It was quite a sight to see.
SInce I live in the south, I get more opportunity to see WS plays at the Globe in London. As I am sure you are aware the building is a reproduction of WS's original theatre.
I know only few DVDs of the Bard. But Henry V (by Branagh) is good. Avoid Mel Gibson's Hamlet. But I'd don't do WS DVDs sorry.
I think the Ian Mckellen King Lear is available - I saw it maybe 4 years ago. If it is, get it. Also P Stewart and Mckellen do Waiting for Godo by Becket - this is a must see. I saw this front and centre at my local theatre. Two greats head to head, one shines, the other is cast in shadow.

So where in South American are you?

If you have seen so much good theatre, and Shakespeare, and read so much good literature, how would you describe 'the sphinx of cement and aluminum that bashed open your skull and ate up your brains and imagination'?

What happened, Hobbles? Love gone bad? Uncomfortable footwear? What's your diet like?

This is in humour of course ...
__________________________

Colombia, South America. En el Norte del Valle de Cauca. Quite beautiful.

Gustav Bjornstrand wrote:If you have seen so much good theatre, and Shakespeare, and read so much good literature, how would you describe 'the sphinx of cement and aluminum that bashed open your skull and ate up your brains and imagination'?

What happened, Hobbles? Love gone bad? Uncomfortable footwear? What's your diet like?

This is in humour of course ...
__________________________

Colombia, South America. En el Norte del Valle de Cauca. Quite beautiful.

Ha fucking ha.

Are you a coke dealer?

Religion should be based on atheism.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:So the religion is in no position to make those promises. Nivarna, Valhalla, Heaven, Elysium: since no one has come back to give witness the core of the religion is either knowingly or negligently making claims it cannot make.

In most (I can't speak of all) religions, the orthodox teaching is not that religious leaders have made promises, but that God has made promises. So your claim that the promises are false amounts to a claim that God is not in a position to make those promises. Now, when you say that, I think you are saying more than merely that you personally don't believe in God.

Else, how can you say God's promises are all false? How would you know that?

mickthinks wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:So the religion is in no position to make those promises. Nivarna, Valhalla, Heaven, Elysium: since no one has come back to give witness the core of the religion is either knowingly or negligently making claims it cannot make.

In most (I can't speak of all) religions, the orthodox teaching is not that religious leaders have made promises, but that God has made promises. So your claim that the promises are false amounts to a claim that God is not in a position to make those promises. Now, when you say that, I think you are saying more than merely that you personally don't believe in God.

Else, how can you say God's promises are all false? How would you know that?

Ridiculous distinction. It is the priest making the promise since god appears mute in all these religions. So you are just being stupid.

Ridiculous distinction.

It is somewhat ridiculous if you can't see the distinction between God and the human beings who are chosen to preach the word. No religion I know of empowers its priests to make doctrinal promises autonomously.


So you are just being stupid.
LOL NO U!

mickthinks wrote:
It is somewhat ridiculous if you can't see the distinction between God and the human beings who are chosen to preach the word. No religion I know of empowers its priests to make doctrinal promises autonomously.

Obviously you are as stupid as any member of the flock in thinking there is a distinction.