Is Shakespeare "more tragic" than the Greeks?

[Scheherazade]

Have you got children of your own, Sitaram?

[Sitaram]

Is this a personal attack? I feel you are singling me out unfairly, and I think I have something to offer to many people. My "what if" scenario is hardly any different from the "Would you..." thread, and the "Have you ever thread..." except that mine has some useful purpose behind it, whereas those threads are motivated by amusement and idle curiosity. I posed the scenario to dramatize that Oedipus blinding himself is possibly of his own free will, and possibly the most tragic aspect of the drama, rather than the fated incest and patricide.


What I notice is that you never post anything positive towards me, but you do post things which seem negative or critical. Is it really the case that you personally feel that I contribute nothing worthwhile to anyone in what I write?


Your first post to this thread seems to be saying that I have "poor taste". If someone posted that their favorite novel is one that you dont care for, would you tell them they have poor taste. America is a nation that dines at McDonalds and watches sitcoms. Poor taste is not a crime, and perhaps to understand classic tragedy, we must see it in the context of the poor drama of today.

The Bible is about things like Lot impregnating his daughters, which is incest. And Oedipus is about incest and patricide. I am merely trying to explore via a "what if" scenario, what people would choose if their back is against the wall.

Obviously, you and I are not equals, for you have the power of a moderator, to ban, to delete, to lock threads. For that reason alone we cannot really argue as equals.
So why is it, since you have such power, that you sometimes exert yourself to stress your own tastes values and beliefs? Is that the function of a moderator. We didnt get along together in your monthly book club, so fine, I stay clear of that since that is your territory.


Am I in some violation of forum rules?

I do not inquire into your personal life, nor do I inquire into any other forum members personal life. It seems to me to constitute a form of ad hominem.

If I my contributions are not welcome here, then I would appreciate it if Admin or Logos would contact me and explain.

But with all due respect, I do not feel that it is appropriate for any forum member to inquire into the age, gender, marital status, address or other personal information of another member.

If you want to punish me for standing up for what I feel are my rights of freedom of expression, then there is little I can do about it. But I feel that it is a loss to at least some forum members who have thanked me, if you single me out and make me feel unwanted and uncomfortable.

What more can I say?

Please explain why my gender or marital or parental status has anything to do with my posts. No one is forced to read my threads, and as Logos mentioned once, anyone is free to place a member on ignore. I have never tried that option.

I am trying to be fair and civil and respectful to others. So forgive my candor.

[Scheherazade]

Sitaram,

What 'poor taste' is depends on personal interpretation... I think in this context, whether you have children are quite relevant as you offered a what-if scenario (and this is no game thread) related to children and answered it in a way that, in my honest opinion, no 'healthy' parent would. I cannot imagine any parents (considering that we are no Lot or Oedipus) who would opt for incest rather than getting blind themselves...Which why I asked if you had children...

As for Oedipus... He did not know about his incest till after too late... And upon discovery, he chose to blind himself because the act is that unacceptable... He thought he deserved punishment even though he was unaware of the fact that he was marrying his own mother. So your scenario is not really similar to his predicament. He was not given a choice (and if he had been, it is obvious what he would have chosen).

Lastly, I cannot see what my Moderator status has got to do with any discussions. I do not act on a whim or twist the Forum rules in a way to suit my ideas or interpretations. I am a member of this Forum just like anyone else but if you have any problems with this, there is nothing I can do.

[Jay]

Sitaram, I can't see why Scher being a mod and you not should make you unequal, do you feel threatened in any way? It seems like that to me. A moderator bans, locks, deletes and the like... what does that got to do with anything? Have any or your threads been closed unreasonably? As far as I can tell thread closing is not that frequent thing here if you don't count some of the book forum threads like nominations and when things get out of hand or break the rules of the forum. There has never been a thread closing caused by personal reasons such as not getting along with a member and you're a poor character judge if you think Scher would do what you're hinting at. Either that or I'm paranoid and seeing things.
Your point regarding inquiries about sex/age/location/marital status are all voluntary and no one is forced into revealing anything about themselves if they don't want to. If you don't want to reveal that kind of information about yourself there's no reason why you should. To me Scher's question about you having children or not had nothing in common with her wanting to pry into your personal life but it was a kind of... an expression of surprise.
Again, if you think Scher would punish you for having an opinion... we're talking entitlement here (if that rings any bells).

[Sitaram]

This entire thread has to do with Tragedy (ancient, elizabethan and modern) in relation to fate, destiny, predestination, necessity and freewill, and it arose because of my involvement with another thread in Sophocles.

It is perfectly reasonable for me to point to a modern work like "Sophies Choice" as an example of something we call "tragic". It is perfectly reasonable for me to pose a general what-if scenario to the general readers (which, by the way, is totally impersonal... I do not single out any individual and cross examine them).

In what sense to Sher's posts relate to the questions and problems raised in this thread? It seems to me that Scher is not even interesting in these issues. If someone has some profound point to make about tragedy, or fate, or necessity, or murder or incest, it seems to me that they should be able to do so without bringing it to a personal level.

I am a work now, but I would like to discuss these matter in a civil fashion at some later point in time.

I have my reasons for feeling as I do, and I shall discuss them at a future point, if I am given that opportunity.

Thank you for your time and interest and giving me the benefit of the doubt.

[mono]

Wow! I left the thread alone for a day, and chaos broke loose!

Mono, what do you say, since you are in on this.... shall we continue with our inquiry and allow our minds to range freely over the centuries, over all the many volumes in Borges "Library of Babel", or... is this curiosity of ours too insubordinate?

Yes, Sitaram, I would love to continue this discussion, without absolutely purposeless arguing so that the thread does not deserve a lock for out-living its purpose.

-----

Unfortunately, as of yet, I have not had the pleasure of reading anything by Milan Kundera, despite after many recommendations. The metaphor, nonetheless, sounds very intriguing, though it places a character like Oedipus into more of a voluntary and decisive state, where, in a way, he perceives the "upcoming attractions," or lack thereof, of his future. In Oedipus Rex, the truth catches him by surprise that he murdered his father, married his mother, and had children through incestuous relations; and, sadly, he experiences both of the consequences, spawning family from his family and crudely causing himself blindness.
Regardless, if given the choice, it brings quite a discussion between Immanuel Kant's idea of 'deontological ethics' (The Groundwork for the Metaphysic of Morals) and John Stuart Mill's 'utilitarianism' (partially based on, his teacher, Jeremy Bentham's 'Hedonic calculus'). In the analogy, either intentionally losing sight or having incestuous relations (or, in essence, the end of humankind), it sounds like quite a dilemma. The more utilitarian mind would insist on promoting what Mill called the 'greater good,' so ending humankind never seems an option, and going blind never sounds inherently beneficial, so incest seems the choice; on the contrary, the more deontological mind more insists on making just intentions and performing one's duty - again, ending humankind never sounds like an option, if given in one's control, and, granted that, to the average person, incest seems morally and subjectively (if not objectively) wrong, one would feel it seemed his/her duty to compel blindness.
I feel, however, that Oedipus, and most of the other tragic Greek characters, had far less of a choice to succumbing to their fates than the Shakespearean tragics, who, mostly, seemed more autonomous from the divine polytheistic gods and goddesses (like in Rotter's idea of the internal vs. external locus of control - human choice, determination vs. fate, luck).
No doubt, if Macbeth had not obsessed so much over power, and taking others' lives in the process, he would never met his own chosen fate. Does the desire for power, however, sound more or less just than the desire and obsession of love in other Shakespearean tragedies (like Romeo and Juliet)? The immense deviation between utilitarianism (Mill, Bentham) and deontological ethics (Kant) one could apply here, too. Yet, as you quote E.E. Cummings, Sitaram, and very wisely:

The hero's tragic flaw is a flaw of self, in self.

The mind is a good servant but a cruel master.

The mind is its own beautiful prisoner. - e.e. cummings

Making Shakespeare's tragedy, Romeo and Juliet, does obsessive love necessarily seem a flaw? Not to the so-called "hopeless romantics," but, I think, both Romeo and Juliet, and their directly involved family members, could have acted more justly to avoid its dire consequences (as in utilitarianism, searching for the 'greater good').

[Jay]

Referring to Sophie's Choice - nothing wrong about that, haven't noticed someone objecting if I remember correctly.
General what-if scenario is ok as well, it was you saying you'd chose incest before blinding yourself that makes it 'a bit'... not right. No idea what you not singling out comes to play here. Giving you the benefit of the doubt and saying I might have misunderstood you about the incest thing.
Scher's posts are just reactions to your posts. Her ideas and opinions just aren't the same your are. Anything wrong with that? One doesn't have to be interested to have an opinion. Are you saying opinions that crash with yours are not profound? Or that those opinions not being backed up by intensive google search are not worth mentioning because they're own and not found on the internet and adopted? Not saying adopting opinions/thoughts/whatever is a bad thing but people do tend to have thoughts of their own. I really have no idea what makes you think the discussion is on personal level (other than the children inquiry but that was, in my opinion, a reaction of someone who disagreed with your choice of prefering incest to blinding self).
What makes this discussion in an uncivil way?
Maybe your reasons would explain some things/points in the future but until then I can't see anything uncivil (if that's a word, I'm too ignorant to bother right now about 'correctness' of word-formation, blame my young age if you like)

[Sitaram]

Thanks Mono.

I realized that it would be intellectually dishonest of me to pose the scenario and not answer it myself. So I did answer it. If it were EXACTLY as I posed it, I would choose incest over self-inflicted blindness because things like incest and rape scar emotionally, but CAN be overcome... whereas blindness or chopping off someones hand is permanent....

I think Oedipus made a mistake to blind himself rather that get up, dust himself off and move on...

I thing Jeremy Irons made a mistake to not pick up and move on....

I think the victims who survived the Holocaust who did not move on made a mistake, and rabbi Harold Kushner for one agrees with me, and offers cogent reasons.

People who choose suicide, based upon some religious belief, are tragic... I think it is closely related...

Whatever your problem... it is better to make the choice that allows for survival, for moving on...

Unless your choice means that the human race as we know it will end... in that case, you it is tragic if you choose your personal health and survival over that of your species, or your nation.

[Bianca Fransen]

Hmm, Sitaram,
I do not exactly agree with you there that a suicide would be tragic to the one concerned.. whereas you step over the consequences of incest and rape rather lightly. Much too lightly to my taste. I cannot talk about thoughts that go deep, or about books.. without including my feelings and my personality and life experiences.
I believe that in some cases it might be easier to learn to live without a hand or with impared sight than with the heavy scars of incest or a tragedy of that magnitude. You describe yourself very well that in a movie (it was the first one you mentioned) one woman was so heavily damaged she became a psychopath. - for good.. to me it seems as a direct effect of her sufferings. So then the comparison should be: would you rather loose your hand or your personality? Your sight or all your feeling of what is good and kind in this world?
Unfortunately I can talk from experience - and looking back I think I would rather loose my left hand (I write with my right hand ) then change as much as I have changed by bad experiences. The tragedy to me is then not having had the choice . I have noticed that even the relatively light things I have gone through have made me harder and more insensitive than I wanted to be. They have even made me loose my mind for a short period. And that is a tough thing to loose.

But maybe you are right. Maybe if I would have chosen loosing a hand it would have been harder then not having had a choice. Cause then I would have always looked at that hand and thought "I could still have had it, had I taken different consequences". Thing is - you know what you've lost once you've lost it. And if I would have a choice in everything I would throw my life away pondering about it. Isn't that the tragedy with Hamlet? Not the actual events, but the fact that he cannot make a decision, because all the consequences are too great?
Maybe a great sense of loss is the greatest tragedy of all: the loss of loved ones, the loss of your innocence, the loss of a future..

[Logos]

Sitaram, I don't know exactly what's going on here but no, I don't think that Scher's asking you if you have children is a `personal attack', it does not go against the Forum Rules.

Yes you do have a lot to offer these forums and you have already. I am sorry you feel unwanted or unwelcome sometimes.

The thing is we can't tell people how to post, whether as a Moderator or a Member, (unless of course they're not following the Forum Rules) that's the beauty of `public' forums, `open' discussion.

Scher also offers a lot to these forums as a Moderator and Member here and I think they do a fine job of delineating from both positions, and they are perfectly entitled to participation in discussions.

I think you are doing a disservice to your topic here by derailing it like this, I hope it can get back onto topic

If I my contributions are not welcome here, then I would appreciate it if Admin or Logos would contact me and explain.

[Sitaram]

Suicide bombers choose the "self-inflicted blindness" side of the coin every day, around the world, and see themselves as saints and martyrs. I cannot see the point of putting out your own eyes, when it won’t change the past. And I cannot see living in a room like Jeremy Irons, staring at a photo day after day, when the deed is done.

I realize this will come as a shock to all of you (and you will think I am making this up) but there is actually a major religion in which the holiest prophet marries a 6 year old and consummates the marriage when she is nine (but this is not pedophilia by any stretch of the imagination) and that same prophet receives a divine command, from on high, that his adopted son should divorce his wife, so that the the father might marry her (but by no stretch of the imagination is this incest.) My mistake is not turning to religion to learn good, wholesome family values. Hey, fair is fair. If you are going to step forward as a model for how everyone should think and feel and impose that upon me and every else, then it is only fair that I hold up for everyone to see the culture and heritage and values which produced such a fine moral specimen. Woah! And while we are on the topic of divinely revealed scriptures. What did old daddy Lot do in Sodom and Gomorrah when the sodomites came to abuse his two guests? I will TELL you what daddy Lot did. He said "I have a young daughter here, and I will give her to you to do with as you like. Only do not harm these guests." Hmmm... now how do you fit that into your reasoning about what decision parents make?! I would be interested to see how you wriggle out of this one! And Lot was the ONLY ONE to escape, with his two daughters, from the destruction. Ah, but then those wrong doing kaffirs have corrupted the scriptures. We really should keep our distance from that can of worms.

You know, anyone with even the smallest smidgen of intellectual honesty, reading the above paragraph, would concede that I have really put a totally different spin on this whole issue.

And as for Schers remark that "this is no game thread", well... I am a bit confused. You mean it is "OK" for this forum to have threads where people gratuitously gossip about drug experimentation and adultery, for no purpose other than idle amusement.... thats OK, BUT ... If you are discussing literary works where the topic is drug addiction, or incest, or rape, or pedophilia, and such points WOULD NOT be gratuitous, but would have some conceivable socially redeeming value, .. why then it is "NOT OK"... Er? How do you figure all that?


And I am glad you know me so well that you can say what a good description of me is. I guess ad hominem is something that one only gradually outgrows.


Of course, Jesus said it is better to pluck out your eye or cut off your hand, than to go to perdition, which is probably why we see so many one-eyed fundamentalists.

I suppose the real value of this thread will be to analyze me. I am sure there are many who feel eminently qualified.

Well, I can’t fight city hall. Sorry to have bother you all. I shall post no further in this thread.

[Admin]

Thats about enough. I think we should all take a break and remember to respect the beliefs of others.