My beginning studies into Philosophy:Tradegy

Trippy discussions of moral issues, conspiracy theories, the paranormal and other otherworldly phenomenon.

Moderator: Dracofrost

My beginning studies into Philosophy:Tradegy

Postby Rao » Wed Feb 12, 2003 3:38 am

The term "tragedy" derives from the Greek literally means "goat-song," perhaps from goatskin costumes worn by early tragic singers in imitation of satyrs. In aesthetics, tragedy is the quality of experience whereby, in and through some serious collision followed by fatal catastrophe or inner ruin, something valuable in personality becomes manifest, either as sublime or admirable in the hero, or as triumph of an idea. The situation itself or its portrayal is termed tragedy. The characteristic subjective effect is that of a complex of strongly painful and pleasurable elements existing simultaneously, both of which may be regarded as arising from sympathy: the painful elements from sympathy with the sufferer in evil, present or future (pity and fear), and the pleasurable from sympathy with the noble or heroic character displayed, or with the triumph of some idea (as in the case of guilt overtaken by catastrophe). In the case of the tragic in art, there is the additional element of the aesthetically pleasing form in which the action, character, or situation is presented. The tragic presupposes a greater magnitude in its objects or events than is necessarily involved in pathos and usually involves a more active collision.

Plato pointed out the mixed character of the feeling of the tragic. Aristotle noted the serious quality and the element of magnitude in tragedy, named pity and fear as the emotion is excited, and stated the result of tragedy to be the effecting of a catharsis (or purging) of such passions. He suggested also that the tragic catastrophe results from some fault or error. This, as the theory of tragic, has been developed in various aspects by German Idealists. Hegel regards it as the triumph of the universal, the idea, and the destruction of the individual. "Presumption" or overstepping of the due bounds of finiteness on the part of the individual has been emphasized as tragic motive by Vischer, Carriere, and Zeising. The inevitable and inherently necessary character of the collision or catastrophe in many cases enhances the tragic effect. This has been interpreted optimistically, by Hegel, Vischer, Carriere and Schiller (who in some way make the loss of the individual exhibit the triumph of the idea, or of the moral nature). It has also been interpreted pessimistically by Schopenliauer and Bahnsen. Others (Lipps, Volkelt) reject the theory of guilt or poetic justice as applicable to more than a portion of tragic situations.

Let it be known that i mix my beliefs in with plato and Aristotle,
Tell the Spartans, Stranger passing by,
That here, Obedient to their laws, We lie,
User avatar
Rao
Elite Guard
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:26 pm
Location: The Boondocks

Postby TerraFrost » Wed Feb 12, 2003 3:48 am

that's a tad more thorough than we ever covered it in the Philosophy class i took, heh.

anyways, i actually don't like tragedies like Titanic, or Pearl Habor, for the most part. Those hit with people, I believe, because they are real. People can't just sumarily dismiss them, because they actually *did* happen. you can't just say... oh, it won't happen to me, after Titanic, because it can, and it *has*. however... like i said, i don't like these. i think these tragedies don't really inspire much imagination. Tragedies like Oedipus Rex or Hamlet are what I consider to be good tragedies... in them, pretty much every act means something. Every act seems reasonable, but it just worsens the situation. You don't dismiss these tragedies because all through it, you're relating to the character whom they are happening to. You understand that his actions weren't really weird... they were just normal reactions to what happened, and that's a big part of the tragedy. They did everything they should, and it still happened. They made all the right decissions, but it still happened. Titanic isn't about choices - it's about random events that happen while you're making all those choices. In Hamlet, Hamlet has no one to blame other than himself. In tragidies like Titanic, you can just blame God, which is really sorta side stepping the issue...
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Rao » Wed Feb 12, 2003 3:52 am

My favorite tradgedy was by far Romeo and juliet. To see the measures that two would take to bascially be disowned by there own families i find still to this day very admirable and that shows what love really is.
Tell the Spartans, Stranger passing by,
That here, Obedient to their laws, We lie,
User avatar
Rao
Elite Guard
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:26 pm
Location: The Boondocks

Postby TerraFrost » Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:01 am

yeah... Romeo and Juliet is another really good tragedy. Although I really haven't read any of Shakespeare's tragedies recently, Hamlet used to be my favorite one - I'm not sure if it still would be...
TerraFrost
Legendary Guard
 
Posts: 12357
Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2002 6:37 am

Postby Rao » Wed Feb 12, 2003 4:04 am

Shakespeare's tragedies are easily the best. No other writer could cope with his skills in that field. Comedy, also he was very great at. "Much ado about nothing" was my personal favorite.
Tell the Spartans, Stranger passing by,
That here, Obedient to their laws, We lie,
User avatar
Rao
Elite Guard
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:26 pm
Location: The Boondocks

Postby Rao » Thu Feb 27, 2003 10:25 pm

Temperance is the virtue of moderation and self-control in anything, but especially in indulgence in pleasures. Temperance, in the large sense of moderation or self-control, was the characteristic Greek virtue. For Plato, temperance is one of the four cardinal virtues, both in the state and in the individual. He describes it as a harmony or agreement between the higher and the lower parts - the governing and the governed in the state, the rational and the appetitive in the soul resulting in the obedience of the lower to the higher. While Aristotle's specific virtue of temperance is still narrower in its range than Plato's, in his doctrine of the mean he may be said to reduce all virtue to the habit of moderation or temperance in the large sense. Christianity reaffirmed the importance of this virtue, deepening and broadening the Greek conception of it. The new emphasis given by Christianity to the negative element in temperance, through its principle "die to live" led to the exaggeration of temperance into abstinence, which is, in Aristotle's eyes, an extreme - that of defect - no less than excess.
Tell the Spartans, Stranger passing by,
That here, Obedient to their laws, We lie,
User avatar
Rao
Elite Guard
 
Posts: 1532
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 10:26 pm
Location: The Boondocks


Return to Twilight Zone

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron