Bloom's Shakespeare assertion

Relating to the (out-of-context) opinion of Harold Bloom placing Shakespeare as the greatest writer. Presented with the questions:

1. Are authors such as Homer and Shakespeare the absolute best writers?
2. If we take it that the answer to 1 is yes than why is it that Dante has never been equalled in Italian, Homer in Greek or Chaucer in English
---

I struggle to cast a definite opinion of whether Bloom is correct or not. His opinion is certainly justifiable and in line with great literary minds before and after him.

Having delved into serious criticism over the past several months (though not yet Bloom), I can safely say that a theme prevails over much of 18th and 19th century English criticism in regards to what is "best." So, it wasn't just Bloom who emerged with these ideas. To greatly simplify: Each sphere or epoch of admiration is a time of great innovation and of great culture. Most famous among these are Pericles' Athens, Renaissance Italy, and Elizabethan England.

Homer represents the best of the Greek world, and the Athenian Greek world is what Arnold calls (summarizing) a perfect culmination of culture and religion. Dante could be said to fulfill the same role for Renaissance Italy. Shakespeare may not have so much religious influence, but one could say that his idolation of historical figures at least helps in that regard. In any case, by breadth of influence does Shakespeare fit the bill, and as the only among the three who wrote native English, it's little surprize that he is often considered the "best" by English-speaking critics. Though some, notably Thomas Love Peacock, have asserted that Milton is the superior. Certainly Milton better culminates the prevailing Religious influence. see: Four Ages

Having summarized this in relation exclusively to the narrow path above mentioned, let me attempt to answer the questions just as narrowly:

1. Homer, yes. Shakespeare, debatable. (I personally put Milton in the lead)

2. Homer has no equal in Greek and perhaps any language - see above. Dante has no equal in Italian as his work represents the literary culmination of a great epoch in human history. Chaucer well represents his age but does not repesent the best of English literature.

Reply to Science vs. Religion

In the forums http://www.online-literature.com/forums/forum.php

Lacking the training to get too specific, I would like to contribute my personal experience to the general conversation.

Like many of us, I suspect, I was born a Christian and rebelled against it later in life. I searched for answers to the many questions that would arise during such a rebellion, but no answer was quite so easy or satisfying as "God." Nonetheless, knowing the inherent contradictions of the established religions and encouraged by the obvious abuses of the religious, I never went back. This because the only reason to go back is that it was easy.

It is easy to believe in Heaven, and angels, and everlasting life. It is much more difficult, tragically so, to know that death brings the infinite, timeless darkness. In the deepest corner of our minds, we all suspect this is true - but most cannot and will not accept it. This because such a thought imbues a great responsibility: You only have one life. Religion has spent innumerable years and efforts to escape this responsibility. As a tool of rationalization, it is fundamentally wrong.

Knowing that religion is wrong, does that make science right? No, not necessarily. That is a grand example of a false dilemma (apologies if this was said before). I suspect the answer is somewhere in between, as is usually the case.