In class today one group thought that the theme of the short story "Before the Law" by Franz Kafka is that "if you do not try, nothing will change." As soon as I heard them say that, it made sense. I knew that was exactly right. The man is the story is complacent, he does not try to change the law, he just accepts it, while complaining. By using a parable Kafka is able to make the story more relatable and get across his point without offending people, because he does not directly say his views or opinion. Instead he conveys it though a story. He makes you feel frustrated for the main character, then you, even if it's subconsciously, realize what Kafka is trying to say. Kafka was able to make the law a physical barrier, one that a reader can visualize. Passing through the gates symbolizes breaking the rules, it symbolizes trying and taking action. Not simply accepting fate and waiting for a change. The laws set in stone, not just by our government, but by our society, and by ourselves, are not always right. Sometime in our heads we have our unwritten rules that we follow, but they hinder us for reaching our full potential. We need to build up the courage to fight our own inner "rules". We need to have the courage to fight the law, because as Abraham Lincoln said a "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the Earth." People change, and therefore laws need to evolve to represent the people. Laws will not change by people complaining. Laws change once people take action. In the modern world I feel that this is very evident. People are quick to comment how they feel or complain on social media, but are reluctant to do something that will actually make a difference. Additionally, the lesson of this parable can connect to the story of Antigone. Antigone defied the law. Despite the consequence of death, she does what she believes is right and crosses the gate (=breaks the law). Even though the ending of "Antigone" and "Before the Law" both end in death of the main characters, they both tell very different stories. It is up to you to decide which one was a more fulfilling life; the one who defied the law and stood up for what was right, or the one who was complacent.
Antigone reminds me of myself in many ways. She is not afraid to stand up for what she believes is right, even if it means she is thought of as a bitch. She is not afraid to go against the rules or the ruler (Kreon), in order to uphold her beliefs. One of my favorite parts of the story is when Kreon asks her is she gave her brother a proper burial and say replies, "I did it. I deny nothing." Antigone is not afraid to receive any punishment Kreon may bestow on her, because she knows that she did the right thing, despite the law. I admire her fearlessness. I admire how confident she is in her decision. She has strong values and she knows what she defines as right and wrong, even though she is stubborn sometimes because she won't listen to others' advice (for example, her sister).
Kreon is another character that interests me, and I can relate to in some ways. Kreon made a law, and he is the ruler. He wants to fairly punish Antigone, so it does not seem he is giving her favorable treatment since she is his niece. But, Haimen informs him that the people of the town are not concerned with Kreon's equal treatment. The townspeople think that the law is wrong; therefore, they believe Antigone should not be stoned, the punishment Kreon bestowed on anyone who gave Polyneices a proper burial. Kreon had already made his mind and he did not want to seem like a weak ruler, where a young woman changes his mind and "bypassed" the law. But, soon he overcomes his ego and changes his mind. Sadly, it is too late, but he still did it. He still changed his mind, which takes character. One of the reasons Abraham Lincoln is my favorite president is not because of the emancipation of the slaves. I admire Lincoln, because unlike most politicians, he was not afraid or ashamed to change his mind. He realized he was wrong to think that slavery was acceptable and he quickly changed his view on it. A lesson we can learn from the story of Antigone, which we can still apply today, is to not let your pride interfere with what is truly right. While trying to digest "The Tragic Fallacy" by Joseph Krutch at 7 in the morning was difficult, especially considering Krutch's writing style, it was also worth the pain. Some of the conclusions drawn from reading this lead to an interesting group discussion. Krutch explains, "We accept gladly the outward defeats which [tragedy] describes for the sake of the inward victories which it reveals." Even though tragedies are plagued with tragic events, this is what makes them great. They use tragic events as a vehicle to elevate the message they are trying to convey. One example Krutch touches on is the death of Juliet. Sure, it sucks that Romeo and Juliet both committed suicide, but if they had not, how else would it be clear how madly in love they were for each other? For many, including myself at one point, Romeo and Juliet are foolish teenagers. But, that is just what their families and friends thought of them while they were crushing on each other. For the star-crossed lovers, dying was easier than living without the other. That kind of love is something that many adults will never even experience. Therefore, the tragic events in a story may seem excessive but it is these events that evoke such deep emotion. The parts we may like the least are what make the stories so captivating.
When you learn something new you are supposed to feel empowered, but instead I feel weak. I feel like my strength was stolen from me. My independence, my freedom, my choices, and my decisions are not really mine. I thought I was smart enough to not fall for the medias ploys. But that is the problem, as a society, we imagine ourselves to be such intelligent, thoughtful beings. And we are, but we have flaws. For example, in the TED talk "Are we in control of our own decisions?" Dan Ariely gives countless examples of optical illusions, then he relates them to our cognitive illusions. He explains that if our eyes fool us in optical illusions, even after we know the truth, than our mind can fool us in more discrete ways. Ariely argues that our eyes are our most exercised organ, we use our eyes all the time, yet our eyes still make mistakes. This is similar to decision making. We are confident in our decision making abilities and out preferences but in reality we have cognitive illusions with regard to decisions making. We carry a false state of free will. But our decisions are shaped by our choices, and our choices are shaped by our environment. It is sometimes scary to think that we do not have control over our own lives. But it is nice to remember that by making good decisions we can shape our future options in decision making. In the end, I guess it does not really matter who is in the drivers seat, as long as the driver is an organ donor (yes, that was a reference to the TED talk).
Sometimes when I think about my future I get overwhelmed. If one thing goes wrong in my very detailed life plan, I feel as though there is no point in trying anymore and I contemplate giving up. The way that Oedipus' parents reacted to the oracle reminds me not to get upset over the little things, and to instead just keep going and to keep trying in all other aspects, even if one fails. Oedipus' parents were so upset over the oracle that they decided to banish their own child to preserve their lives. And, in the end, the prophecy was fulfilled regardless. If they had just accepted the prophecy and decided to live happy and enjoy their lives with their child, I am sure the prophecy would be different. Despite what his parents may have thought when he was a newborn, Oedipus did not intentionally want to murder his father or sleep with his mother. He only did those acts because he did not know those people were his parents since they abandoned him when he was a child. That is what I love about this tragic tale. It reminds me that if something does not seem to be going my way, to just keep on trudging through life and trying my best in every way, because I do not know my future, and I can be capable of anything if I put in the work, instead of giving up over small set backs.
In order to truly feel successful and satisfied, we must create our own ideas of success. I do not want to spend my whole life working toward certain goals, then when I fulfill my goals, wonder why I am not happy. That feeling is created by not fulfilling my true goals. Instead of letting society tell me what being successful looks like, I create my own image of it, personalized for myself. Therefore, when I reach that point, I know I will truly be successful. In the TED Talk "A Kinder, Gentler Philosophy of Success," de Botton brought up a lot of points that made me think, including the idea of success in contemporary society. He proposes that there is "a correlation between a society who tells people they can do anything and low self-esteem." To me, this makes sense. If we constantly tell someone they can do anything they dream of, then that person will constantly feel like they are not reaching their full potential, that they are not doing enough. So by encouraging people to reach their full potential, we are making them feel like failures. This is where tragedy is introduced. De Botton says that tragic arts trace how people fail. This is an interesting interpretation of tragedy. By looking at tragedy from this much simpler perspective, it seems much easier to understand. As de Botton argues, do not think of Hamlet as a loser, he is simply someone who has lost. This key difference affects how we see ourselves and how we read tragedies.
Most people associate tragic works with Shakespeare and other famous philosophers and playwrights of the distant past. But, tragedy can be seen throughout contemporary history. Tragedy is not limited to the times of prices, knights, and prophets. Arthur Miller in “Tragedy and the Common Man” wrote, "I believe that the common man is as apt a subject for tragedy in its highest sense as kings were." I agree, but I would even take it further to say that the common man is more of a subject suited for tragedy than kings are. If the purpose of tragedy is to create catharsis in the audience, than relating to the audience is a key step. I think works like Oedipus Rex and other famous tragedies are not popular because of their similar settings/characters (i.e. the worlds of kings), but despite those aspects. Those authors accomplished an even greater feat by getting the audience to relate to characters that may not seem like them at first glance. The common man may not face the same outwardly drastic dilemmas that kings do, but I would argue that the inward struggle of the common man is greater than that of lavish kings.
If you are fluent in classic Greek, when you hear the word "tragedy" you may think of goat songs since "tragedy" comes from the Greek words that means goat song. Many speculate that this is because goats were the prize of chorus competitions or because choruses performed at goat sacrifices. Contrary to how the word derives, tragedy has such a deeper meaning today. Through the centuries, philosophers, authors, and artists have added to the interpretation of tragedy. Influential people such as Plato, Aristotle, Voltaire, Shakespeare, and Freud have all speculated about and shared their thoughts surrounding tragedies. Today, Wikipedia says tragedy “is a form of drama based on human suffering that invokes an accompanying catharsis or pleasure in audiences.” The part of this definition that attracted me was catharsis. It seems like such a big part of tragedy, yet my English teachers in the past barely covered it. Based on this definition, the determining factor or whether or not a work of art is a tragedy is if it is able to evoke catharsis in the audience. This drew my curiosity for two reasons. One, how does one measure the arbitrary feeling of catharsis in the audience. And two, how is an author or artist able to create catharsis through their art? To answer these questions, it is critical to fully understand the meaning of catharsis. Aristotle was the first to use catharsis when describing tragedies. Catharsis actually comes from the medical term, cathartic, which is anything that quickens your body’s ability to release waste. Aristotle compared what a tragedy does to the mind to what a cathartic does to the body. They both release and cleanse the body of something. In the case of a tragedy, it purges the audience’s mind of thoughts and feelings that may have consumed them earlier and they leave with a clean slate and the sense of a renewed spirit. The idea of creating catharsis to produce a tragedy is quite intriguing and I would like to explore it more in the upcoming weeks by looking at exemplary works of tragedy. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |