--- Ted Winslow <egwinslow@rogers.com> wrote:
Justin wrote:

> Which is like reading the point of Hamlet as saying Revenge is Bad.

It makes this point by showing the basis of the desire for vengeance in 
Hamlet's character, i.e. it's insightful.

JG: That's not insightful.  Insightful would be, perhaps, to show why 
establishing that a desire's being in one's character is Bad. But the 
greatness of Hamlet does not lie in its insight that vengefulness is in 
Hamlet's character (I'm not sure that the play does this anyway), but 
in its insights into Hamlet's character. The richness of the play is 
evident in the variety of interpretations that can be supported.

This contrasts, say, with Foucault who feels that vengeance is good, 
but lacks insight into why he feels this.

It's not moralistic.  It shows, by illuminating the basis of feelings, 
the path to great feelings, feelings of the greatest pleasure and 
happiness.  Satisfaction of the desire to inflict suffering on others 
can produce pleasure, but it can't produce the greatest pleasure.  This 
is revealed by insight into what makes sadism pleasurable.

JG: But this is moralism, because your assertions of 'great feelings',
'greatest pleasure' are just that - assertions, without foundation 
beyond your prejudice. You are offering a moralising interpretation 
of art. If this is what you get from literature, then I am very happy 
for you. But you cannot universalise these bizarre subjective reactions 
of yours.

--James

___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk