In Kafka's story, the man was in search of the law, but the entrance was guarded. No matter how hard the man tried, the doorkeeper would not give him access. He tried things such as bribery and persuasion, but it did not work on the doorkeeper. Unless he was able to get past the doorkeeper, the man would never be able to access the law. Kafka uses this parable to explain how law works.There are similar connections that can be made to society. Many people try to change the law, but they never will be able to unless they are able to convince the lawmakers. In Antigone, Kreon is the highest authority, so he can be considered "the law." He makes the decision to put Antigone to death because she did not follow the law. However, many people disagree with his decision. They try to convince him to change his ruling, similar to how the man tried to convince the doorkeeper to let him pass. Kreon does not listen to anyone until Tiresius finally persuades him. He decides to let Antigone go, but now it is too late. Antigone has died, and in turn, his son and wife have died as well. The ending is like that of Kafka's story. When the doorkeeper finally revealed the truth of the door to the man, it was too late. The man was dying, so the door was to be shut forever. The story Antigone, by Sophocles, is another great example of tragedy. However, the title character might not be the only victim of tragedy, different from what we saw in Oedipus the King. Antigone's brothers have killed themselves, but one was considered a hero while the other was seen as a traitor by the new ruler Kreon. Polyneices, the traitor, was slated to be given an improper burial, and Antigone was not too fond of this idea. She decided to take it upon herself to give him a proper burial. After this had been done and she had been found as the culprit, Kreon sentenced her to death. She stood up for her morals, yet Kreon is unrelenting in his punishment. Antigone's sister Ismene, although she had nothing to do with the burial, admitted to the crime as well. Here we see that they are once again putting morals at the forefront of the decision. Kreon, on the other hand, shows no compassion or remorse, even though he is the uncle of all of them. In the book, Antigone is told by the Chorus, "You go with fame and in glory to the hidden place of the dead." (Sophocles 53) The community, Kreon's son, and Kreon's wife all had the opposite views of Kreon. They stood with Antigone, but Kreon was still resilient in his stance. It was not until the prophet Tiresius convinced Kreon of his mistakes that he changed his decrees. Now, however, it was too late. Antigone killed herself, A depressed Haimon killed himself, and an upset Eurydices killed herself. Antigone stood up for what she thought was right. In doing so, she was punished. She lost her brothers, and Kreon, her own uncle, would not listen to her. On the other hand, you have Kreon. He could not understand the motivations of others, so he could not be compassionate. He dealt harsh punishments and did not listen to his own family. By the time he finally listened, it was too late, and everyone close to him was dead. Having said this, who suffered the biggest tragedy? Did the tragedy focus more on moral dilemmas or the inability to listen? Maybe both had equal tragic value. From what we've learned, though, there is happiness that can be uncovered in this tragic story. I believe Kreon has turned a corner. He has realized his mistakes, and he will have to live with them forever. Now, though, he understands the consequences. In the end, he does realize what the right decision was. Perhaps he will now be able to lead better and not make the same types of mistakes again. At first, I knew what a text was, however, my perception of it has changed. The perspective from which you view a text has a lot to do with what you think of it. For example, as we looked at the initial image, I thought of a memorial. I recognized sadness, grieving, and the characteristics of a memorial. It turns out I was right about the memorial, but I could not identify the exact details. When the second image was revealed, it was clear to me what the image depicted. It was a picture of a man grieving after the tragic events occurred at a Paris memorial. Without all of the information, I could not see the full picture. When I had the second image and looked at it from a different perspective, I could point out many more details. This method of viewing things might be a point I bring up in my philosophical essay. People see tragedy from a certain perspective, but if you bring up more details in the story, you can see things from a new perspective. The image of the tragedy changes. Certain events that might not be focused on shed a new light on what a tragedy truly is. Literary tragedy can be an accurate depiction of social tragedy. They definitely have similar characteristics. The events that occur might be different, but the process of action-reaction is basically the same. As we viewed today's tragedy, we looked at the brighter outcomes and saw that they are there. In literary tragedy, we can also see the happiness within as we look deeper. Daniel Ariely explores the amount of control we have over our own decisions in his TED Talk. He presents visual and cognitive illusions that illustrate how people are influenced without even knowing it. The question it begs is if someone can be influenced in their own decisions by someone else so easily, are they in complete control of their own decisions? Tragedy is also something that presents illusions. The illusion for most people is that tragedy is completely sad and depressing. As I have explained in previous blog posts, this is simply not true. Tragedy explores calamitous situations, but there are many things within the story that display happiness, triumph, determination, and hope. To see the full picture of a tragedy, you have to be able to discern these optimistic characteristics in the story. In one example of tragedy, Oedipus the King, influential advice plays a key role in the decisions made by the main characters. The Oracle makes a prophecy involving Jocasta and Oedipus both of which try to avoid but, in turn, this causes them to make it come true. If Jocasta had never sent her son away and Oedipus hadn't run away from home, none of this might have happened. Trying to run away from their fate actually led them right into it. It seems like the decisions the characters made were already predetermined for them. In tragedies, there are actions that are considered noble. These actions often result in tragic endings, but the importance of the actions are what you have to look at. As Joseph Krutch puts it, "Its action is usually, if not always, calamitous, because it is only in calamity that the human spirit has the opportunity to reveal itself triumphant over the outward universe which fails to conquer it." Tragedy is certainly present, but the noble actions that are performed by the people in them represent the optimism that can be gained. Tragedy, then, is not necessarily depressing. Certain triumphs can be distinguished that leave the reader feeling happy. By reading through the story, the reader can find possibility and hope. Krutch notes that, "it must be a paradox that the happiest, most vigorous, and most confident ages which the world has ever known - the Periclean and Elizabethan - should be exactly those which created and which most relished the mightiest tragedies." From this, you can tell that there is some positivity which must be included in tragedy. Otherwise, why would people from such happy times excel at writing such tragic stories? Tragedy, like all stories, is a work of art. All good works of art should include a happy ending. Therefore, a good tragedy must include some type of happy ending. Since tragedies include awful events, the happy ending must be found through some other aspect. Authors must find some way to include this, whether it is explicitly present or it hides between the lines. In other words, the reader should not be entirely depressed from reading a tragedy. The tale of Oedipus the King is a very tragic one. Oedipus was a very famous king, and the people of Thebes knew it. He was able to defeat a sphinx which saved the people of Thebes, and for that, the people were forever grateful. He was condescending towards his people, even referring to them as "children" (4), but they did not care. Oedipus boasted about his triumphs and himself so much so, he was basically setting himself up for disaster. He even introduced himself as the "World-famous Oedipus." (2) When Oedipus realized someone killed his predecessor, he was determined to find out who. He was so angry that he even called down curses on the killer. The irony of the situation, though, is that he was the murderer of Laius. Oedipus eventually realizes this, but he has to find out for sure. It proves to be true, but what Oedipus doesn't realize yet is that Laius was also his father. The prophecy Oedipus and his mother tried so hard to prevent is coming true. By trying to circumvent the future, it led them both right into it. Oedipus is finally clued in on his backstory, and it connects all the events together. His mother tried to get rid of him because she heard Apollo's prophecy. Oedipus left where he came from because he heard Apollo's prophecy. This, in turn, led to the two not knowing who the other was. The two ended up getting married, as foretold in the prophecy, and neither was too happy when they found out. Jocasta killed herself, and Oedipus gouged his eyes out. The news of these events brought shame upon Oedipus's entire bloodline. The citizens of Thebes no longer respected Oedipus. In fact, Oedipus no longer even respected himself. His view of everything drastically changed from the beginning of the story to the end because of the tragic events that occurred. The story of Oedipus is truly a tragic one, and that is why it has been around so long. The popular view of tragedy is that it is sad or discouraging. Events that take place in tragedies are, in fact, usually pretty awful, so this view is not entirely wrong. However, tragedies should be looked at with a lesser amount of pessimism, and instead, a greater amount of optimism. Arthur Miller explains in his text, Tragedy and the Common Man, that tragedies "ought to be the reinforcement of the onlooker's brightest opinion of the human animal." Tragedies should not be dreaded, they should be looked at as lessons. People can see what could be possible through tragedy and use a more optimistic outlook. In tragedies, there is a goal, and it seems attainable, but it is usually prevented from being reached. If we can figure out why or how that prevention occurred, we can learn from it, and stop it from happening again. There are usually pessimistic attributes in a tragedy, but there is optimism mixed in. It is a combination of the two that makes a good tragedy. Sure, tragedies are usually pretty tragic, but they might not be as tragic as you thought. Some people look at tragedy as the difference between success and failure. To become successful, one must have all the chips fall into place. If some tragic event were to occur, they could instantly fall down the ranks. However, many people look at success and failure on the basis of meritocracy. Alain de Botton describes meritocracy as those that deserve to get to the top get there, and those who deserve to get to the bottom get there as well. He believes that there is no such thing as a true meritocracy. Too many random things can happen that prevent people from getting where they're "supposed" to get. He believes in tragedy as a large factor in determining the success of a person. If one suffers more tragedy than another person, they might be prevented from becoming as successful as the other person. Essentially, the "American Dream" is not as easily attainable as it might seem. I believe that becoming successful does depend on a variety of factors. A true meritocracy does not exist. The rough outline of a meritocracy might exist, but there is a lot of variance in the middle. I believe everyone wants to become successful. In some way or another, they want to succeed at something. However, they cannot always succeed. There must be a balance between success and failure. There will be factors that stop people, and the outcome will be deemed as failure. If someone is successful, chances are they're failing in some other aspect of life. Did they deserve to fail? Not necessarily, but you cannot be successful at everything. You have to find the things you can realistically be successful at and pursue them. If you don't, you will probably experience more failure since success is not based strictly off of merit. When I think of tragedy, I think of sadness. I think of people dying or suffering terrible losses. I think of things that I wish would never happen. For the most part, tragedies are very disheartening. However, people may respond to tragedies quite different than you might think. Tragedies do focus on human suffering, but other peoples' suffering tends to evoke odd pleasure in people. They look at the stories from an outside perspective and witness bad things happening to other people. This makes their problems not seem so bad, so they start feeling better about themselves. One example of a tragedy that comes to mind is Romeo and Juliet. It has a very tragic ending, but it might make your relationship problems not seem so bad. Two new terms that I was unfamiliar with were "revenge play" and "tragedy of the commons." A revenge play describes a situation where someone seeks revenge for an injury that they have sustained. I did not know that plays could be categorized as a "revenge" play, specifically. One example of a revenge play is Hamlet. In this play, the ghost of the king seeks revenge for his death, making it a revenge play. A tragedy of commons, on the other hand, refers to a situation where someone takes something for themselves and away from the good of others. Essentially, it is about selfishness. It can be traced to things broader than just books. It is commonly used to describe things such as what is happening to the atmosphere. Aristotle states the following about tragedy: "Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious and complete, and which has some greatness about it. It imitates in words with pleasant accompaniments, each type belonging separately to the different parts of the work. It imitates people performing actions and does not rely on narration. It achieves, through pity and fear, the catharsis of these sorts of feelings." (Poet. 1449b21–29) Aristotle agrees that tragedy evokes pleasant responses from such terrible events. He believes the ability to accomplish this is what makes tragedies so great. Looking at tragedies is a way for people to release their own emotions. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2015
Categories |