Shakespeare vs human

[bilateralrope]

The "Shakespeare has influenced literary tradition" line of reasoning is especially unconvincing, because it still holds that literature is more valuable than people.

As others have said if the copy is the last copy in existance, then I doubt it will have much influence if it was saved. More to the point, unless I knew that the books in question were really important I would probably leave them even if the guy didn't need saving, as a burning building is not someplace I want to be in for any longer that required. For me to save a work of art, it would have to have sentimental value to me.

[Lord Zentei]

The "Shakespeare has influenced literary tradition" line of reasoning is especially unconvincing, because it still holds that literature is more valuable than people.

As others have said if the copy is the last copy in existance, then I doubt it will have much influence if it was saved.

And as I pointed out, that is dodging the point of the question. The whole point of placing the last volume of Shakespeare in a burning building is to create a purely abstract hypothetical so as to compare the value of literature to a human life. This also adresses Discombobulated's point.


However, I'll grant that the argument that a large section of world culture is more important than a single human life is a case of begging the question as far as the discussion so far is concerned. Thus, since it seems I have taken up the role of Devil's Advocate in this thread (since I have already stated that I would probably have saved the person), here are a few points:

1) The value of a human life is not infinite. If it were, one life would be as valuable as many lives, which is absurd.

2) Items with an objective utility have a finite value, since they increase the value of human life among those who remain.

=> Therefore, there is a certain quantity of items with objective value that is equally important as a human. This quantity may be extrmely high, though.


Moreover:

3) It is possible that items with purely subjective value are more important than items with objective value. If not, consider the following scenario:

You are in a burning building. You can safely rescue one of the two items: (a) a copy of Shakespeare, which by the will of the magic genies of SoD is the last copy in existance - purely subjective value. (b) A box of screwdrivers - objective value, even if they are easily replicated. I submit most people would choose to rescue Shakespeare.


Before you deride the above as irrelevant, consider that this implies that in principle it should be possible to have a finite quantity of goods with subjective value which are more important than a single human. As for whether this applies to Shakespeare, well... that's another matter.

More to the point, unless I knew that the books in question were really important I would probably leave them even if the guy didn't need saving, as a burning building is not someplace I want to be in for any longer that required. For me to save a work of art, it would have to have sentimental value to me.

Do I take it correctly that you would not save Shakespeare or another significant section of world culture from erasure if it does not hold sentimental value for you personally, or that you don't deem such erasure "important"? Anyway, the scenario seems to imply that you would be able to safely rescue one of the two.

[Lord Zentei]

GHETTO:

2) Items with an objective utility have a finite value, since they increase the value of human life among those who remain.

Fun fun substitution games: when I say "have a finite value" I mean "have a nonzero, posetive finite value"; though I do surmise that this was clear from the context...

[wolveraptor]

I submit most people would choose to rescue Shakespeare

Shakespeare has enough value to enough people (in the West, at least), that operatively (in this scenario), it has objective rarity and value. Besides, couldn't one also argue that saving a lost Shakespeare play (or the last copies in existence) would bring considerable benefits to the savior? This, of course, is assuming the society still values his work.

For example, someone who didn't like Shakespeare's plays at all would still probably save these copies, but purely for the sake of others whom he knows would enjoy it.

[Knife]

I'm surprised this is still going on. However, I see the same wrangling about 'Shakesphere=good culture' as if without this one piece, western civilization collapses. Granted, a bit of hyperbole but.....I fail to see how, and if there was a lack of said Shakesphere, would plumet our civilization down to the bowles of hell.

So I guess I can't see how any amount of subjective material can be worth a life nor many lives.

[Lord Zentei]

I submit most people would choose to rescue Shakespeare

Shakespeare has enough value to enough people (in the West, at least), that operatively (in this scenario), it has objective rarity and value. Besides, couldn't one also argue that saving a lost Shakespeare play (or the last copies in existence) would bring considerable benefits to the savior? This, of course, is assuming the society still values his work.

For example, someone who didn't like Shakespeare's plays at all would still probably save these copies, but purely for the sake of others whom he knows would enjoy it.

Precisely. The play increases the value of life for XYZ people. In the broader sense, this does not mean that it is equal to a human life simply for this reason - however, it suggests that it is possible (at least in principle) to have a finite quantity of subjective goods that outweigh a single human in importance.

I'm surprised this is still going on. However, I see the same wrangling about 'Shakesphere=good culture' as if without this one piece, western civilization collapses. Granted, a bit of hyperbole but.....I fail to see how, and if there was a lack of said Shakesphere, would plumet our civilization down to the bowles of hell.

So I guess I can't see how any amount of subjective material can be worth a life nor many lives.

Bit of an exaggeration of the presented position, there. I doubt that anyone is arguing for the collapse of western civilization without Shakespeare. Moreover, merely because civilization would not suffer collapse from the loss of Shakespeare does not mean that "any amount" would not be equal to a human life, given that a human life is not of infinite value.

[wolveraptor]

Precisely. The play increases the value of life for XYZ people. In the broader sense, this does not mean that it is equal to a human life simply for this reason - however, it suggests that it is possible (at least in principle) to have a finite quantity of subjective goods that outweigh a single human in importance.

Could you provide an example?

[Lord Zentei]

Precisely. The play increases the value of life for XYZ people. In the broader sense, this does not mean that it is equal to a human life simply for this reason - however, it suggests that it is possible (at least in principle) to have a finite quantity of subjective goods that outweigh a single human in importance.

Could you provide an example?

All human culture would presumably qualify.

[wolveraptor]

Are we working with the presumption that if all human culture dissappeared tomorrow, it would never return? If not, then new culture would almost certainly spring up with blinding speed. If so, then I concede the point.

[Lord Zentei]

Are we working with the presumption that if all human culture dissappeared tomorrow, it would never return? If not, then new culture would almost certainly spring up with blinding speed. If so, then I concede the point.

It would most probably return (if all culture is based on our inherent psychology), though not neccesarily at "blinding speed". Clearly, we would have to start over, i.e. writing the items of our new culture without the benefit from earlier works to draw inspiration from. Which would presumably take quite a long time. How long did it take to create our current culture in the first place? Why would the new culture be built more quickly if all the old were erased with nothing to work with?

If not all culture is based on our inherent psychology, but in part that our psychology is based on our culture (at least in part), who knows what would happen?

[Lord Zentei]

If not all culture is based on our inherent psychology, but in part that our psychology is based on our culture (at least in part), who knows what would happen?

Hooray for redundancy!

Anyway, the point is clear enough.

[Knife]

Bit of an exaggeration of the presented position, there. I doubt that anyone is arguing for the collapse of western civilization without Shakespeare.

Hyperbole. I did type it, and it was meant to be an exaggeration.

Moreover, merely because civilization would not suffer collapse from the loss of Shakespeare does not mean that "any amount" would not be equal to a human life, given that a human life is not of infinite value.

Nobody has come close to defining at what level subjective worth approaches objective worth (read human life). Not here nor in the original thread Ender linked to.

[lgot]

There is some mistakes in arguments about who invented what, o the plot existed. Plots are not soo relevant when you talk about artwork - They can be a repetition over and over - This is not what influencie art quality. Greeks (not all Shakespeare was Greek influence and not all was firstly Greek either). That is why Shakespeare works would not happen again , there won't be an english man of his century working out, with his mindset, his public target, etc and we would never repeat the ammount of influence he caused in the last centuries. It is safe to say the remotion of Shakespeare in the timeline would change drastically what was the Romantic Movement - which was the way the XVIII century prepared western civilization culture. (Which is not the point of the initial question, it was just a relic vs. human life)
And in a way, Shakespeare have the archetypical stories , not for the question of the topic, but because he became the today's model, in the same way Virgil was more the classical model than the one who was his "father" , Homer.

[Lord Zentei]

Well, shit. I thought this thread was over and done with. Anyhow:

Hyperbole. I did type it, and it was meant to be an exaggeration.

Ok, whatever.

Moreover, merely because civilization would not suffer collapse from the loss of Shakespeare does not mean that "any amount" would not be equal to a human life, given that a human life is not of infinite value.

Nobody has come close to defining at what level subjective worth approaches objective worth (read human life). Not here nor in the original thread Ender linked to.

So? That is irrelevant to the point that it can exceed a human life, as I pointed out above.