Shakespeare’s Arguments.

(Not Shakespeare's quotes).

Studies in the art of persuasion.

A brief examination of many arguments used by Shakespeare with much relevance to modern life.

For example an early indication of the

principles of re-distribution at the

heart of the communist ideal.

An argument for re-distribution.

The famous quotation from Karl Marx:

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” is at the heart of many quotations of Marx's view of the higher phase of the communist society, when the cooperative wealth from labour flows more abundantly, and its distribution can be more fairly apportioned so that the higher individuals of the meritocratic labor force, provide for the needs of each individual who presumable are in want of that ability.

What is fundamental here is not only that this principle is supposed to spring from the altruism and love of those with ability, towards those who either lack it or trade its want for the protection of the provider, (a seriously deficient presumption lacking correspondence with nature), supplying those where the provider is unable. This already happens in most if not all family structures in nature, where one adult, with special ability, may well do the work, hunting or provision making, and the partner and offspring, receive in accordance with their needs. This may overlook the fact that those with needs have abilities that are pooled in an exchange, for I do not know of any relationships where there is no exchange. Needs as qualified by 'according to' implies a determination, most likely in Marx's view that seriously excludes the recipient from the process where the requirements of that person's imagination are pivotal. (obviously excluding special cases of selfishness, but 'man is the measure of all thing', - Protagoras' - basic relativist view). The requirement where:

As Shakespeare says,

Lear. O, reason not the need! Our basest beggars
     Are in the poorest thing superfluous.
     Allow not nature more than nature needs,
     Man's life is cheap as beast's.

Argues that reducing life to needs, will make it considerably less interesting 
than it might well be otherwise. More importantly however:

Glou.Here, take this Purse, thou whom the heavens' plagues
     Have humbled to all strokes. That I am wretched
     Makes thee the happier. Heavens, deal so still
     Let the superfluous and lust-dieted man,
     That slaves your ordinance, that will not see
     Because he does not feel, feel your pow'r quickly;
     So distribution should undo excess,
     And each man have enough. Dost thou know Dover?

Argues that the patronage springing (In Shakespeare's time) from a belief that God influences human exchanges, and the wealthier will effect the same result by conscience, empathy, or a sense of being slave to the poor man's ordinance.

An argument for Time.

Take other arguments and compare them with the common notions of the law's delay, combined with the enduringly slow pace of rationalisation for many of us.

Recall The Count of Monte Cristo, A. Dumas. Ch. 15 onwards.

The very intelligent Italian, Abbe Faria explains to Edmond Dantes the workings of his own mind.

“Dantes was confused and silent at this explanation of the thoughts which had unconsciously been working in his mind”,

and between their exchanges in each others cells Faria helped Dantes to rationalise that he had already spent some 18 years in the prison. While going over his story of injustice, enabled him to identify which of his apparent friends had deceived him. A plan of revenge was formulated, vast enrichment enables its progress, Mercedes his lost love doesn't even recognise him etcetera, but this is not the prime focus.

The point is that 'rationalisation' is a function of instinct, intelligence, means plus motive, the nature of the deception and focus of interest among many other factors. It varies every time for every instance of deception, and in today's world of human exchanges, many are deceptive by default of bias at the very outset of a conversation.

Thus when we turn to Shakespeare's argument that questions one's tolerance of the “ the law's delay, and The insolence of office “ for most of us, Shakespeare excepted, the law's delay (TIME) is seriously to one's advantage, enabling rationalisaton.

Hamlet. For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,

Th' oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,

The pangs of despis'd love, the law's delay,

The insolence of office, and the spurns

That patient merit of th' unworthy takes,

Cor. Time shall unfold what plighted cunning hides.
     Who cover faults, at last shame them derides.

And

VIOLA. O Time, thou must untangle this, not I; It is too hard a knot for me t' untie! 

One is cogently persuaded that believing 'Time shall unfold', and 'Time, thou must untangle', as time lapse photography shows, a flower's first moments of opening what has been previously covered, and where guilt comes into view, the result is Sartre's notion of shame. (Shame is a function of secrecy and its converse, - discovery, - L'Etre et le Neant, Being and Nothingness) is the process of unravelling deceptions, arguments, and the presentation of discreet and apparently disconnected data to the senses.

What happens is better explained in a short digression on deja-vu, and Shakespeare's rhetorical question “What stuff 'tis made of, whereof it is born,” where conscious thoughts are mingled with the products of the lower consciousness, ( a brief digression on Deja-Vu. Where it may come from? Leading from the first lines of The Merchant of Venice) that at times, penetrate and distract the mind in its deliberations. These things can be very disconcerting when they occur during a prepared speech, where conscious content is dissonant with subconscious content in the form of the 'Freudian slip'.

An argument on conscience

Shakespeare says:

Ros. We think not so, my lord.

Ham. Why, then 'tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.

Not alone does thinking make a distinction between good or bad, right or wrong, but the way others define us (returning to Sartre's Being and Nothingness) assists this process. Sartre says” it is impossible to be ashamed alone”not meaning actual physical loneliness, but being aware of other's values while perhaps being alone. Being really alone has its roots in nature (birth and death), and as such, moral judgments flow from subsumption, that is under a rule, albeit a rule of nature that one eats, and it follows something has to die in the process. Awareness of others, and their values is part of nurture, so that judgments of comparison arise from which there is the formation of consensus. Deviation from that accord is the result of the feeling of shame or pride.

Any serious experienced criminologist will probably argue that the most secure crime is one committed alone.

But there's the rub Because

GONZALO. All three of them are desperate; their great guilt, Like poison given to work a great time after, Now gins to bite the spirits. I do beseech you, That are of suppler joints, follow them swiftly, And hinder them from what this ecstasy May now provoke them to.

The dissonance created by the force of other's values is rarely factored in to the equation, since the criminal mind is usually mixing with those familiar, resulting in a pressure to disclose with pride or shame what he has done. Usually if for gain it will be to boast. But if a culpable crime without gain, it will require an egregious sense of amoral insularity with moral justification to avoid disclosure, even beyond a deathbed confession and remedial conduct to follow. Whichever form it takes, to take the shame with one at death is something I personally have acquaintance with, in the biblical theft of my wife's inheritance, following her mother's death in an accident. This is covered very deeply in the story “The Force of Destiny”, elsewhere in these web pages. Looking back with the hindsight of Edmond Dantes, one can see the discreet indicators, which, like percepts outside a field of focus, were there all the time and presented to the stream of consciousness, remaining for long periods of time as mere disconnected contents. Some time later, when one looks back and examines with greater purpose, (like a forensic scientist may be asked to re-examine a case for a particular strand of evidence, comes up with data that was there at all times, but overlooked due to the lack of purpose in the initial investigation), to reach the pure logical conclusions that the criminal was having great difficulty in containing his shame. The subtle remarks, questions and indicators, combined with language barriers I had at the time, hindered the percepts reaching the requisite field of focus at its centre, rather than its periphery.

An argument on prophesy & logical prediction...

A weak argument on determinism.

An argument for the right time.

To be continued.........