Why do we think that Portia’s line in the Merchant of Venice: ‘All that glitters is not gold’ (‘glisters’ actually) says that there are things that glitter, yet which are not gold? The line does not say this explicitly. This is what we want it to say.
Strictly speaking, what it says is that whatever glitters is not gold. This is not true, because gold does glitter, or at least some gold glitters. As it stands, the sentence conforms to the E-type proposition on the square of oppositions, Aristotelian or modern. E-type propositions are of the kind: No A are B. A paraphrase of Portia’s line then would be: ‘Nothing that glitters is gold.’ Alternatively, ‘It is not the case that there exist things that glitter and are gold.’
What we want is an O-type proposition: ‘There exist things that glitter and are not gold,’ or, which is the same thing, ‘Not everything that glitters is gold,’ with the negation pushed out in front of a universally quantified sentence.
Here is another example which we repeat more often than we think through its implications: ‘Winning is not everything. Winning is the only thing.’ When ‘everything’ is used in the predicate position it usually means ‘is the most important thing’. The expression ‘is the only thing’, again, used as it is in this quote, in its somewhat colloquial or idiomatic garb, means ‘is the most important thing.’ Hence: ‘Winning is not the most important thing. Winning is the most important thing.’ A contradiction!
‘Nothing comes from nothing,’ (Parmenides) and ‘Almost everything comes from nothing,’ (H. Amiel), on the other hand, can happily coexist and give no or little impression of being contradictory. The triumph of pragmatism over logic.
Strictly speaking, what it says is that whatever glitters is not gold. This is not true, because gold does glitter, or at least some gold glitters. As it stands, the sentence conforms to the E-type proposition on the square of oppositions, Aristotelian or modern. E-type propositions are of the kind: No A are B. A paraphrase of Portia’s line then would be: ‘Nothing that glitters is gold.’ Alternatively, ‘It is not the case that there exist things that glitter and are gold.’
What we want is an O-type proposition: ‘There exist things that glitter and are not gold,’ or, which is the same thing, ‘Not everything that glitters is gold,’ with the negation pushed out in front of a universally quantified sentence.
Here is another example which we repeat more often than we think through its implications: ‘Winning is not everything. Winning is the only thing.’ When ‘everything’ is used in the predicate position it usually means ‘is the most important thing’. The expression ‘is the only thing’, again, used as it is in this quote, in its somewhat colloquial or idiomatic garb, means ‘is the most important thing.’ Hence: ‘Winning is not the most important thing. Winning is the most important thing.’ A contradiction!
‘Nothing comes from nothing,’ (Parmenides) and ‘Almost everything comes from nothing,’ (H. Amiel), on the other hand, can happily coexist and give no or little impression of being contradictory. The triumph of pragmatism over logic.
Shakespeare, as a great master, is entitled to use poetic inversion, even though for us mere mortals it tends to signify bad poetry.
ReplyDeleteIn this case, once Portia's line has been reverted to ordinary sentence order, it reads, "Not all that glisters is gold." Which, of course, implies exactly what everyone thinks it implies.
v/r
M
No doubt about that. Besides, in spoken English intonation would come to our assistance. At any rate, it only proves the point that we will defer to pragmatics before we embrace logic. In jest, I might add: if Shakespeare lived today, he'd be more likely to get a job writing copy than script.
ReplyDeleteToo true on both and well said. How one feels about the fact that humans are not reducible to cipher or perfectible by collectivism says much about one's worldview.
ReplyDeleteAnd how a culture treats a Shakespeare says much about its level of civilization. There's always a chance he would get a job writing for television. Though not Broadway; he's not transgressive enough.