A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
What do you think? :knight2:
- Status
P
promethius95945
Guest
Both right and wrong, in my opinion. Let’s look historically, however:
Tsunami kills 100,000 people. Tragedy, yes. Facing off between a right and a wrong? no. Facing off between two rights? No. Tsunamis are ammoral… there was no great showdown of morality involved in this tragedy.
The children’s crusade. Tragedy? yes. Facing off between right and wrong? DEFINATELY. A bunch of children were kidnapped and lost forever after a man claiming to lead a peaceful childrens’ crusade stole them away forever. Thus there can be tragic loss when good and evil face off.
Friendly Fire in a just war. Tragedy? Yes. Good and evil fighting against each other? No. Facing off between two rights? Yes. How sad it must be if one squad came up against another and they fought with deadly force, only to realize that they were both mistaken and fighting their own brothers in arms?
So, all three are truely tragic, though all three occur in different areas of moral struggle.
V
Vaclav
Guest
I don’t recall this quote of Hegel’s, to be honest.
It fits Hegel’s view of history (to an extent) but as with Hegelian philosophy in general, it is overly optimistic in the progression of history towards his defined ends.
D
dessert
Guest
Well someone has to be right. Otherwise it is just a power struggle between the desires. Dessert
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Do you have an example of two protagonists (fictonal or historical) who – as fallible human beings – have conflicting notions of what is ‘the good’?
What commentary would the Church have on this conflict? Can Church teaching “save the appearances” (Barfield) or “merge the horizons” (Heidegger)?
T
Truthstalker
Guest
Shakespeare treated this in Hamlet, I believe. Hamlet’s struggle was against two goods. Polonius gave conflicting advice. Ophelia started talking about non-linear time, poor girl. Not sure about that last one.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Ah! Truthstalker! You are reading my mind. The very second I posted the OP, I thought of the struggle between two goods in Romeo and Juliet.
Are you making this up? Must be; Forsooth, for the lad posteth neither quote nor link. How doth therefore the common man reckon the reference?
If what you are saying is true, then Ophelia seems to have found good company in holly potter, heisenberg (the poster), and Steven Hawking.
What last one?
V
Vaclav
Guest
Of course, there are many examples of such conflict where two opposing individuals believe they are doing right. Ian Paisley and Gerry Adams would be two fine examples.
I think the Church’s view would depend on the conflict, quite clearly.
One of my favourite pieces of literature.
I disagree that Hamlet struggled against two goods. Hamlet struggled against many things, but his primary struggle was between two “bad” choices: suicide or murder. Remember that Hamlet claimed that “conscience does make cowards of us all.”
Is that really true? Would the Church advocate either suicide or murder as a solution to Hamlet’s problems?
In then end the web of duplicity returns to claim its brutal justice. Who is left to tell the tale? Only Horatio, who observes, but does not take part in any of the deceit.
I think the issue here is that perhaps there are “good” intentions, or “good” thoughts, but the actions taken on behalf of those initial feelings are surely not good. This is more true in Romeo & Juliet than it is in Hamlet.
The primary problem with Hegel’s quote is that it depends entirely on the point of view of others. There is nothing wrong with it per se other than it is mostly relativistic in origin.
Hegel, as a philosopher, is (in my opinion) given far more respect than he is due. He primarily offered a linear-progressive view of history that was far too optimistic and ridiculously presumptive. He somewhat furthered the dialectic model, for which he deserves some credit.
By the way, thanks for the good topic. Shakespeare and philosophy? Who could ask for more?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
This is a philosophy thread. And the OP is open to your choice of conflict to exemplify your point of view on genuine tragedies resulting from a conflict between two goods. So choose away!
Yes. We would see suicide and murder as bad choices. But did Hamlet? From the perspective of a fallen human being, what good did Hamlet hope to achieve by suicide? Or by murder?
Obviously not. But perhaps you could explain why? How could the Church have helped Hamlet? Do you think the political situation in England at the time would have allowed Shakespeare to be anything more than very circumspect about how the Church could have helped Hamlet?
What was the duplicity in Hamlet? Would you flesh that out so that we can follow your line of reasoning please? Thank you.
Does Horatio’s observation serve to further ‘the good’? If so, how?
Yes, often the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Ah! Give the man a cigar! In R&J, however there is a growth in understanding at the end and a reconciliation. In this respect, R&J differs from Omelette.
What realization makes R&J different from Omelette?
Yes. However, it is useful to understand the dangers of relativism as part of the journey toward God or as part of the journey away from God.
The thing about reading philosophers is that we don’t have to agree with them to benefit enormously from what they are saying.
Marx would agree with you. Marx is thought to have ‘turned Hegel on his head.’ But look where Marx ended up.
Perhaps you could flesh this out too so that we can follow your line of reasoning. Not everyone has read Hegel and Marx. I suspect there are lurkers who are curious and would even post something in response to an explanation. Please also say how Hegel furthered the dialectic model.
How would you apply Hegel and Marx to R&J and Omelette?
:tiphat: By the way I say ‘R&J’ because one of the principle dancers at the National Ballet uses the term and I think it’s cute. My English teacher in highschool used to announce the beginning of the class by opening his book to Hamlet and, in a stentorial voice, saying ‘Omelette’ which would evoke gales of conspiratorial laughter.
C
cpayne
Guest
Javert and Jean Valjean.
Commentary by the Church: “Mercy triumphs over judgment.”
Hi again, Ani Ibi.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Hiya!
Can you flesh this out so that we can follow you? And if you have some links that would be really helpful. I have to nip out this afternoon and have a meeting this evening. So don’t have a lot of time to Google stuff, particularly as I promised john doran to Google something on the microwave background on the Big Bang thread.
C
cpayne
Guest
Linking stuff, no, sorry, can’t. I’m honestly not terribly computer literate. Jean Valjean, main character of Les Miserables; Javert is the inspector who follows him throughout the novel and eventually kills himself because he cannot reconcile the demands of law (which he has always fanatically followed as the only true “good”) with his new-found impulse to mercy and forgiveness. Jean Valjean is the convict redeemed by the mercy shown him by a bishop (from whom Jean Valjean had just stolen valuable silverware). So: the conflict of law and mercy, two goods, but mercy is greater.
BTW: Kant says two genuine goods cannot be in real conflict. I think he is wrong about that, but I do think goods are arranged hierarchically so we can figure out which good would be the best one to pursue in any given situation. In that sense, maybe there isn’t a “real” conflict.
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Thanks for the explanation cp. If you want some tips on how to link, pm me.
Who has written on the arrangement of hierarchical goods?
How can we determine which good to pursue?
I think the Principle of Double Effect is sort of this thinking ‘turned on its head.’
Does anyone have any thoughts on Kant’s comment?
D
dessert
Guest
What were the two goods in Romeo and Juliet? I don’t see them, wasn’t it a tradgedy? Dessert
C
cpayne
Guest
About “hierarchical goods”: What I had in mind was Aquinas’s arrangement of natural law principles from the most general, like “Good is to be done and evil avoided,” to more specific ones that have more or less binding force depending on the specific application and situation. (In case anyone was going to ask: No, this is NOT moral relativism. ) If I remember correctly, the hierarchy of goods goes from life and self-preservation, to family and procreation, to knowledge and education, to socialibility and recreation. They are hierarchical because each depends on the previous ones, except for life and self-preservation, which is a necessary good for anything else to follow.
) If I remember correctly, the hierarchy of goods goes from life and self-preservation, to family and procreation, to knowledge and education, to socialibility and recreation. They are hierarchical because each depends on the previous ones, except for life and self-preservation, which is a necessary good for anything else to follow.
C
cpayne
Guest
Principle of Double Effect: Yes, you are right that it applies here. For example, my intended good effect is to spend money on more books, for the sake of the good of Education and Knowledge. The foreseeable but unintended bad effect is that we run out of money and my family starves. In this case the bad effect, even if unintended, is serious enough that it trumps the intended good effect. It follows the natural law hierarchy of goods because Life, Self-Preservation, and Family are more important than my personal Education. (This theoretical argument has been thoroughly worked out in real-life discussions with my wife.)
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
OK. Let’s see if we can clarify. Here is the quote from the OP:
Along the thread the equation was made between ‘two rights’ and ‘two goods.’
The families each put forward identification with and unquestioning loyalty to extended family as good.
R&J and their priest put forward identification with love as something which could span bridges over hatred and prejudice as good.
These two goods came into conflict, thus resulting in tragedy.
Truthstalker, Vaclav, and cpayne are folks who have some insight into Shakespeare. Perhaps they have some further thoughts? Anyone else have further thoughts?
A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
V
Vaclav
Guest
Oh, I think Hamlet saw faults in both choices. Really, that is one of the central themes of the work. If he saw no fault in murder, then he would have followed his father’s ghost’s orders and enacted “justice” upon his Uncle.
Suicide was a much more difficult issue with Hamlet and of course was the topic of perhaps the most famous soliloquy in English literature. The essence of the question is whether or not non-existence is preferable to existence. It is, surmises Hamlet - but there is a wrench in the works. “Ay, there’s the rub” says Hamlet…“what dreams may come?”
Hamlet lists the horrible difficulties a man must be burdened with in life (the opppressor’s wrong, the pangs of despised love…the list is long) yet, he asks the eternal question. Why should man (and obviously woman in that context as well) submit himself to such a horrible existence?
In that way, if the atheist is correct and death is simply the cessation of life with nothing to come afterwwards, then suicide is the preferable option for many! But it is not. Hamlet reasons that suicide cannot be the answer because there is something more.
I got long-winded there.
That is an excellent point and one I’m sure you know the answer to
It might be easier to answer what wasn’t duplicity in Hamlet!
Everything seems to be wrapped around the court conspiracy which is first that Hamlet’s Uncle was having an affair with the Queen. He then murders the King to assume the throne and marry his mistress.
From there it is a downward spiral of multiple secrets, lies, and chicanery. Some with good intentions (Gertrude keeps secrets from Hamlet, thinking him to be insane). Some simply evil (Claudius sends Hamlet to England to be executed).
I would not say that it furthers a good. I might have to think on that actually.
What do you think?
In that sense Marx was very much correct.
I’m not sure that I want to write an essay on Hegel
I’ll try and summarise my view. Hegel believed in an idealistic and constantly progressive movement of history through linear time. In Hegel’s mind there was an ever-evolving rational progression of history wherein all of the fields of mankind (be they literature, physics, art, whatever) proceeded towards a nebulous concept of freedom and consciousness.
Contradictions were a normal part of this process, indeed a necessary part and this is where Hegel borrows from Fichte the idea of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis (though I don’t believe he ever uses those terms). History itself is guided towards this end by the “geist” which is another nebulous concept. Sort of a “soul of the times.”
How would I apply Hegel and Marx to Hamlet and R & J?
I wouldn’t apply Hegel
A Marxist view of Hamlet?
Denmark is rotten because the very system is rotten. It is led by a ruling class of elites who quite clearly have no values or morals and are quite clearly much more concerned with self-interest than the people over which they rule.
Hamlet attempts to reform many of the institutions of the broken system, but it is far too overwhelming and he is far too indecisive and he has no real knowledge from where true reform and proper revolution should come (the proletariat). Therefore he is doomed to failure and tragedy.
Polonius would be your capitalist, but Claudius would represent the true intelligent ruling class interests behind the useful idiot (Polonius).
T
Truthstalker
Guest
The remark about Ophelia. Sorry if this caused confusion.
I haven’t read Hamlet in many years.
- Status