Croce III

By -
"Quale dialogò nelle tragedie del Corneille! Falso da cima a fondo. Pare che i personaggi sappiano che c'è un pubblico che li ascolta. Parlano come si parla quando, pur fingendo di discorrere a quattr'occhi con un interlocutore, si ha tutta la buona intenzione di farsi udire da un terzo. Voce rinforzata, accenti fuori tono, discorso preparato..." -- Pensieri sull'arte, X

What dialog in the tragedies of Corneille! False from top to bottom. It seems that the characters know that there is a public that is listening. They talk how one talks when, while feigning to have a confidential word with another, one has every intention of letting a third person overhear. A strong voice, accent without tone, prepared discourse...

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more