424. Hast Any Philosophy In Thee? William Shakespeare

I once attended a lecture by a Jesuit who argues that Shakespeare was familiar with Aquinas, based on a passage in A Winter's Tale where he lists virtues in the same order Aquinas did. 

During my junior year of college--the US Bicentennial year of 1976 (well before anti-democracy thugs attacked the US Capitol Building)--I took a Shakespeare course at San Francisco State. The textbook had on its cover the same portrait that you, Peter, used for this episode. I think I still have that textbook. Good memories.

Peter, thanks for all your efforts!

Disappointing you didn't make up one of your jokes on the lines of,"Two Hookers walked into this Manhatten bar..."

(Apologies if "hooker" is a forebidden word.

Dear Peter,

I have been listening to your padcasts for sometime now. I tried to listen to all periods, with gaps of course, to update myself. I listened to all the islamic period. I was able to listen to episode 424 today with great joy.

Living in this difficult period in my country and being a retired engineer who has always loved reading history, literature and philosophy. I have now a new task of listening to your podcasts. I have also started to play an instrument.

Thank you very much a apreciate your efforts very much. “One who does not thank men, will never thank God”.

May I make one point;

On episode 153, Hossein ibn Masour Hallaj (with strees on L), you mentioned about the meaning of the word.. When people took the cotton out of their blanket, it needed to be soften by a Hallaj. He has a big bow like tool, and he would strike the string against the cotton. Vibration of string would cause cotton to soften.

This is still done in some villages in Iran.

I read somwhere that you are now reading Farsi as well. A saying is, When someone wants to explain a matter very fully, he will say:

          ” بگذار موضوع را کاملا برای تو حلاجی کنم. “  

   I am asking not to be intrusive, just because everyone has a bias and religion is very tied up with philosophy. Even though you have done a good job all things considered at being as unbiased as possible in your presentation. Everyone, even if unconsciously, has a bias, and if possible I would like to be aware of yours if possible. However, I totally understand if you don't want to share that information.

Thanks for the focus on Shakespeare! On your characterization of Shakespeare's view on rhetoric as "dangerous", I wonder if we can see it as being more neutral (or even Machiavellian in the non-pejorative sense of the term) if we juxtapose Julius Caesar against the "Stranger's Case" speech in Sir Thomas More. If we accept that Hand D was indeed Shakespeare's, then in that scene the titular character--an officer of the state--successfully and effectively diffuses a xenophobic riot through rhetoric, appealing to both rational self-interest ("how dare you disobey the king/God and cause public disorder?") and emotion ("how would you feel if you were treated like this if you were a refugee?"). In both Julius Caesar and Sir Thomas More, rhetoric is more a tool of statecraft that skilled practitioners use, for good or ill. 

(now I'm thinking that that Sir Thomas More speech might be a good mini-case study of Shakespearean Renaissance political theory!)

Shakespeare's interest in the instability of knowledge is not surprising in the light of his profession. Both comedy and tragedy get dramatic oomph from characters 'knowing' incompatible things (the identity of someone, for example, in twin comedies), coming to 'know' something false (Desdemona's infidelity) or doubt something true (Cordelia's love) etc.