Advanced Search Abstract Sound and its use in communication have significantly contributed to shaping the ecology, evolution, behavior, and ultimately the success of many animal species. Yet, the ability to use sound is not a prerogative of animals. Why should plants emit and receive sound and is there information contained in those sounds? I hypothesize that it would be particularly advantageous for plants to learn about the surrounding environment using sound, as acoustic signals propagate rapidly and with minimal energetic or fitness costs.
It is ridiculous because there never could be a Lovejoy of this generation. Herzog and his circle may not realize that bythe time for Lovejoys has passed. Bellow trusts that his readers do. At a remove of half a century, it can be difficult to conceive of just what a towering figure Lovejoy was.
From the time he arrived at Johns Hopkins in until his death inhe was an institution and an institution builder: Delivered as the William James Lectures at Harvard in and published init is for this work he was and remains best known.
Wimsatt, Lionel Trilling, and Paul de Man. Much recent work returns in particular to the New Criticism, and elaborates a point made by Douglas Mao in the mids: This is not an obvious case to make.
|Aristotle on Tragedy||This essay is a discussion on the common and the traditional interpretations of tragedy.|
|Tragedy - Wikipedia||Greek tragedy Athenian tragedy—the oldest surviving form of tragedy—is a type of dance -drama that formed an important part of the theatrical culture of the city-state. The presentations took the form of a contest between three playwrights, who presented their works on three successive days.|
|A WORLD FULL OF SOUND||Address correspondence to M.|
|Green symphonies: a call for studies on acoustic communication in plants||The main difference between Aristotle and Shakespearean tragedy is the unity of plot ; Aristotelian tragedy consists of a single central plot whereas Shakespearean tragedy consists of several interwoven subplots.|
|The Difference Between a Classical & a Modern Tragedy in Literature | Pen and the Pad||Posted by interestingliterature Tragedy begins in ancient Greece, of course, and the first great tragedies were staged as part of a huge festival known as the City Dionysia. Going to the theatre in ancient Greece was, socially speaking, closer to attending a football match than a modern-day theatre.|
To literary scholars especially, Lovejoy can sound out of step even in his own day: And the ideas in serious reflective literature are, of course, in great part philosophical ideas in dilution—to change the figure, growths from seed scattered by great philosophic systems which themselves, perhaps, have ceased to be.
This essay tells a different story. Its argument is that Lovejoy is far more important to literary criticism than these accounts suggest, and that his invisibility remains a hindrance to thinking about the major issue he underscores for literary scholars: Instead, he struggles to articulate how ideas might be thought of as structural elements or materials: The relationship between the intellectual and the nonintellectual elements in a poem is actually far more intimate than the conventional accounts would represent it to be: What does this have to do with the question Brooks interjects into his discussion of structure and shape: But this question remains with us.
This essay begins from the sense that we might develop better ways of talking about what we do by returning to the critics of the midcentury, and to Lovejoy. And with their figures of lines, planes, and cones, as well as their disputes about inside and out, they all configure the question of literature and ideas in formalist terms.
Ultimately, I think this is why Lovejoy is important to literary scholars. It is because of its distinctive object of study—what Lovejoy called the unit-idea—that the history of ideas is comparatist, interdisciplinary, and largely indifferent to canonicity.
In it Science is always wrestling with Theology, Empiricism with Rationalism, monism with dualism, evolution with the Great Chain of Being, artifice with nature, Politik with political moralism.
Its protagonists are never humans, but only reified abstractions.
The history thus written becomes a history not of ideas at all, but of abstractions: The effect is both dehumanizing and dehistoricizing, transforming an actual activity human beings thinking and making statements into nonexistent objects ideas as reified and quasi-personified abstractions.
Their role is merely to label a particular set of propositions with the name which they bear themselves. Their names appear in this story but never their selves. In what does their historicity consist? The answer plainly is that they are not merely propositions, logical structures; they are also statements.
Men have said or at least written them. So the men appear again in the story, appear as speakers.
Lovejoy does hypostatize ideas, taking them out of the minds and persons who think them. He does this because he is less interested in thinkers than he is in thoughts—or rather, in ideas. Skinner would say there is no such thing: The nature of the criticism to be made of such histories is … that as soon as we see there is no determinate idea to which various writers contributed, but only a variety of statements made with the words by a variety of different agents with a variety of intentions, then what we are seeing is equally that there is not history of the idea to be written, but only a history necessarily focused on the various agents who used the idea, and on their varying situations and intentions in using it.
The project of The Great Chain of Being is precisely to reify ideas, but this does not involve smoothing away the rough edges of a given doctrine, or presenting a thinker shorn of internal contradictions.
The chief task of the historian of ideas is not to trace the movement of a given but idealized idea like a doctrine so much as it is to bring her object—the unit-idea—into view and in an importance sense also into existence, to compose or constitute it as such: The coherence Lovejoy generates thus has less to do with meaning the internal consistency of a thinker or a doctrine than with form: One demands that it work.
It is only because an artifact works that we infer the intention of an artificer.Classical tragedy preserves the unities -- one timespan, one setting, one story -- as they originated in the Greek theater.
It also defines a tragic plot as one with a royal character losing, through his own pride, a mighty prize. It includes the core legal source materials in property law along with excerpts from social science literature, legal theory, and economics, many of which are not easily accessible to law students.
These materials are accompanied by a critical commentary, as well .
Yet, the word stand had tremendous religious connotations that predated its erotic usage, and religion was, and remains, as Marx wrote, ‘the opium of the people’. The aim of tragedy, Aristotle writes, is to bring about a "catharsis" of the spectators — to arouse in them sensations of pity and fear, and to purge them of these emotions so that they leave the theater feeling cleansed and uplifted, with a heightened understanding of the ways of gods and men.
VI's definition. in the absence of an Aristotelian elucidation of the term for tragedy. on this reading. While. we are more likely to approximate to the truth if we .