here is, I'd suggest, no need in order to measure to have units of measure.
Is Hardy greater than Littlewood on the sport of cricket, in the sport of
likewise it would be a good idea to see whether there is an ordinal
ordering of people who write literature.
third option, it is perfectly possible that greatness of something written
is determined by who reads it, hence it would be coherent and not
contradictory to have both this Hamsun greater than Musil and Musil greater
than this Hamsun
On Sat, Aug 25, 2018 at 2:39 PM Steven G. Cameron <stevecam@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
**IMHO, please consider consulting Edmond Burke's On The Sublime...
/Steve Cameron, NJ
On Sat, Aug 25, 2018, 12:08 Torgeir Fjeld <t.fjeld1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Right. Who said we couldn't measure the greatness of literature? Here's
"The problem with a question like "Can we measure greatness?" is that it
seems to assume that the word "great" is merely quantitative in nature. The
word "measure" comes from the Latin via the French. The root Latin word
(mensura) means something like "size or quantity as ascertained by
measuring." And apparently the French derivative (mesure) has the sense of
a limit or boundary.
In short, because the question seems to come loaded with assumptions that
ill fit it to be applied to anything qualitative, you in fact limit your
assessment of the qualitative thing being assessed by even asking it.
This creates problems when we are addressing something aesthetic,
although even aesthetic things have a quantitative aspect that can be
measured. We "measure" a poem, and music has "measure." But, since this is
only one aspect of these things, measuring them seems only to enable us to
capture a part of them, not the whole. There is the more elusive part of
any aesthetic thing which, it seems to me, cannot be encompassed by any
technique we might apply to it. And if it cannot be encompassed, it cannot
Quoth Martin Cothran in
Yours sincerely, -t