Differences And Complex Wholes In Shakespeare's King Lear
1647 Words7 Pages
Advancement in an area of knowledge can take different approaches: reducing a complex whole to simple components, integrating simple components into a complex whole and studying the complex whole as itself to understand emergent properties. In this essay, complex wholes are defined to be intricate products of many interconnected simple components. Simple components are fundamental features that give rise to the complex whole, and emergent properties are unpredictable and irreducible attributes of the complex whole. I will be exploring the approaches adopted and their interconnectivity for gaining knowledge in the natural sciences and the arts
In the natural sciences, complex wholes are defined to be the understanding of phenomena, while simple components are factors and variables of a phenomenon. So how is knowledge gained in the natural sciences?
Integration of factors into a predictable complex…show more content… When viewing King Lear, feelings of hopelessness are evoked. Attempting to understand this, audiences may reduce the play to plot development and dialogue. They see that after invocation to the gods for help, tragedy follows immediately. The sharp transitions make readers feel hopeless about the situation, that even gods are unwilling to help . In adaptations of King Lear, actors use integration to express their interpretations of the characters to the audience. Edwin Forrest’s King Lear was portrayed as a foolish king, while Tommaso Salvini portrayed him as a victimised old man . Therefore, Lear may be received differently by the audience, either feeling sympathy or that justice had been served. Thus, for complete artistic knowledge of King Lear, the three approaches have to be used