I’m not going to bother linking the story that I saw, as I don’t think they care enough about Shakespeare to take their passing (albeit, titular) reference to Shakespeare any further (farther?)
But you may see it floating around. It’s from an environmental/green site arguing for the Luddite “tech is bad for us” point of view. “Shakespeare had no Blackberry,” it argues, “And Aristotle managed without an iPhone”:
Shakespeare had no Blackberry; Aristotle managed without an i-Phone. Christianity spread round the globe without blogs. Christ preached his sermon on the mount without the need of a PA system and Powerpoint presentation. All of our technology is completely unnecessary to a happy life.
Does this ring stupid for anyone else? Shakespeare also had no MODERN MEDICINE AND LIVED DURING THE PLAGUE, YOU MORONS. IT IS ONLY THROUGH LUCK THAT WE HAVE HIM AT ALL. I do not think, sitting at the deathbed of his only son, that Shakespeare was thinking about how happy his life was. I think he would have been that much happier with penicillin.
It is ludicrous to point to the “best” of past eras and say “See, they managed,” you mindless fools. You should be asking who we *dont* have, who we *lost* because we failed to save them. Don’t look at what Aristotle and others accomplished and say “See? They managed.” Look at them and say “What else could they have achieved?” How on the one hand can you hold up Shakespeare as one of the great geniuses of the last 500 years, but in the same breath argue for the conditions that allowed him to “manage”? Wouldn’t you be better off looking for ways in which he could thrive?