Honig, Antigone Interrupted, chapter 6

Honig, Bonnie- Antigone Interrupted- intro and Chapt. 6- OCRDownload

Socrates, Schaeffer, and the Form of the Good: Considering Goodness in the Context of Sound (Alternatively, I am So Tired and Still Have to Write My Thesis: Thoughts from a Senior’s Notebook)

Pierre Schaeffer’s concept of acousmatic music and in particular reduced listening relates directly to the Socratic concept of the form of the Good in the context of exploring sound. Schaeffer was a pioneer of music concrète and the concept of acousmatics. Music concrète is music derived from sound itself, as opposed to a harmonic structure (as in traditionally tonal music) or formula (as in pieces born out of set theory). Acousmatics is the concept of hearing a sound divorced from its physical source — this means a sound just as the sound itself, as opposed to a sound related to the instrument or physical body that makes that sound. Listening in this way is ideal for Schaeffer and is what he refers to as reduced listening. For Schaeffer, there are four aspects to acousmatic listening, the last of which (entendre) is the ideal reduced listening: ouïr, comprendre, écouter, and entendre.

Schaeffer’s four modes of listening are akin to Socrates’ conception of the levels of knowledge of reality. To Socrates, ignorance acts as the zero point, which would correspond to a total lack of listening on any level in Schaeffer’s modes of listening. Then comes imagination, which is for Socrates reflective of something but not necessarily attached to truth or knowledge. This corresponds to ouïr (perception), a completely passive, basic manifestation of sound at a primal level. The next level for Socrates is opinion, which is interpretive as it passes judgement on something but it is still less true than knowledge. This corresponds to comprendre (comprehension), which is listening according to a language or signal. An example of this could be the understanding of musical tropes and gestures in tonal music, or our more or less automatic means of attaching the sound of a word with its meaning from a linguistic standpoint. This corresponds to opinion in that it is interpretive but regards sound as a representation of something tied to our physical world, and is still listening to sound in the context of its source. Scientific knowledge is the next step for Socrates, as it is factual and proven with data but still driven by hypothesis, which is rooted in the physical world. The next step in Schaeffer’s hierarchy is écouter (to listen), or sound as indices of worldly events or physical objects. Similarly to Socrates, this is an unreflective, information gathering action. In the same way that scientific knowledge is factual, this form of listening is true but still in relation to a worldly source. The highest level of knowledge is knowledge of the Forms, which corresponds to a knowledge of the true nature of reality. This is where entendre (to have intention [in hearing]) comes into play. Entendre is essentially this idea of reduced listening, in hearing sound divorced from its physical source. This is the purest and most ideal form of listening, in that it allows for a dissociation between sight and sound and promotes listening from a perspective that places the foremost importance on the sound itself. An example of this is when you repeat a word over and over again to the point that it stops serving the linguistic purpose we assign to that word and instead just becomes a combination of phonemes and vibrations — when you start hearing like that, you are taking part in reduced listening. The four Schaefferian modes of listening correspond with the Socratic levels of knowledge of reality in the sense that level of comprehension of a concept correlates with how pure one’s understanding of that concept is (the concept in Socrates’ case being reality and the concept in Schaeffer’s case being sound).

Schaeffer also speaks on sound objects, or a discrete and complete representation of something that remains the same at its core from any perspective. Sound objects are both ideal and objective, and they are revealed clearly only in an acousmatic reduced listening setting. He states the following in his piece Solfège de l’objet sonore (As referenced by Brian Kane in his book Sound Unseen, pg 32): “A sound object … endures through these changes and enables different listeners … to bring out as many aspects of it as there have been ways of focusing the ear, at the various levels of attention or intention of listening.” Here, Schaeffer argues two things: first, that a sound object stays the same and maintains its integrity even when taken from different perspectives; and second, that a listener can perceive this object to different degrees of clarity, depending on the intent of their listening. This to me is an almost direct philosophical corollary to Socratic and Platonic thought as outlined in the Republic with the allegory of the Cave and further discussions of the form of the Good. Socrates discusses the form of the Good as something that cannot be degraded in its purity; only the Forms (which are purely conceptual) are truly good, and Goodness still exists within physical manifestations of these forms, but to a lesser degree because physical reality is a degraded version of true reality (the reality understood through knowledge of the form of the Good). Schaefferian sound objects and specifically the idea of the transcendence of the object (taking something from several different perspectives and it still is at its core the same thing) resonates with the form of the Good as illustrated in Plato’s Republic. For Schaeffer, a specific sound at its core exists most purely in the conception of that sound, which is most accurately accessed in a pure listening experience (that is, a completely reduced listening experience where the sound exists only as the sound itself). I am not sure whether or not Schaeffer was directly influenced by Socratic thought when establishing his philosophies on sound, but there is certainly at the very least an indirect influence, whether the Cave and Plato’s Republic were something Schaeffer was intimately familiar with or whether it is just a reflection of how Platonic and Socratic thought have shaped our society over the course of hundreds upon hundreds of years.

Did Socrates Really Have To “Apologize”

In Socrates’ Apology, Socrates demonstrates and defends his ideologies of practicing philosophy. However, he was accused of corrupting the youth and being impious. Socrates then proceeds in a calm manner to demonstrate that 1.) he is someone who tries to improve others, and 2.) he is not an atheist since Meletus claim that he does not believe in any gods but in fact, he does believe in some kind of gods. My questions towards Socrates’ Apology comes as follow, does Socrates aim to apologize to any extent or whether he had other intentions. I believe Socrates aims not to live his life but rather to withhold his own beliefs since he himself knows that the society will not compensate for his philosophical practices. Why did Socrates have to die? Could he have survived if he acted differently? Was it ethical for him to do such a thing?

Before we look at the dilemma Socrates is facing, we have to look at the Apology and I would like to propose some of my own insights and analysis into some of his rhetoric and specific quotes. Firstly, Socrates starts off his defense by clarifying his position and gives an introduction to his defense. A point to note is that Socrates himself claimed that he will be speaking in a regular, conversational manner (17b-c). Throughout his “apology”, he conversed in a regular and logical rhetoric which is rarely seen in the instance. This is due to the fact that people would bring their families along with them to wail in order to plead for their lives – as Socrates directly referenced from his speech (38d). Another interesting point was that he even cared to make jokes in such circumstance (36d). He claimed that his works for the society should be rewarded by having meals at the Prytaneum instead of facing death. Aside from his rhetoric, some of the arguments that Socrates makes also does not seem that he is trying to achieve the intention of saving his life. For example, “either obey Anytus or not, and either let me go or not, since I would not do otherwise, not even if I were going to die many times (30b).” Socrates straight up does not take any compromise if he is to be restricted from practicing his beliefs. In reasoning for his faith, he even denounces those that tried to harm him. “For Meletus or Anytus would not harm me—he would not even be able to—for I do not suppose it is sanctioned that a better man be harmed by a worse (30c).” He proposes a sort of just and divine in his actions and it would be worse than death to be restricted from practicing it.

In my perspective, Socrates is a martyr that is wise and thoughtful. He had a character that was firm and he withheld his values even before he was to face death. I believe it is very difficult to find individuals that are willing to give up their lives for what they believe in since a lot of people see death as a something matter. However, was it really a wise thing for him to do? Socratic philosophy is radical to the Athenian society and it suffered from heavy political pressure – which likely led to his death trial. His methods of interrogating the public have irritated others and held the accusations on him being impious and corruptive. In response to his accusations, he did not legitimately refute them. He mainly just redefined the accusations according to his own and manipulated the use of wordplay, such as his defense to Meletus’ charges – to prove him illiterate. Despite him believing in the “good” as a god, it ultimately is still considered impious in that he does not properly acknowledge the Greek gods. Fundamentally, Socrates would be convicted legally according to the laws of Athens and it was a dilemma between either he continues to live but not practice his philosophy – by becoming the Sophist (20a), or by living to his morals and values to refuse to change – what he decides to do. From the analysis of Socrates’ speech, I could see his determination and for him, it would be the wise thing to do. He treats as if it was philosophy or nothing, living for him would not be meaningful if he could not practice his philosophy. Hence, it would be the right thing for him to do.

To put into contrast, what inspired me to write this blog post on Socrates’ Apology is the recent events from these few years on radical extremists delivering their opinions and beliefs. Were Athens right or were Socrates right? Well, from the main matters that Socrates critiqued about, Aristophanes claim that a society must have a sense of order to operate. Who is right? Aristophanes or Socrates? I believe there would be an array of answers depending on political opinion and to say who is right or wrong is difficult. Although Socratic philosophy stems his philosophy from identifying the roots and achieve the most virtuous goals, Aristophanes does have a point in that us humans are not perfect and that we have to have authority in order to maintain peace, or else our society will escalate into violence. In spite of the multiple perspectives possible on matters, I believe that ultimately Socrates was killed legally despite me agreeing to his ideologies. His thoughts are harmful to society and question the practices that fundamentally structure society. Hence, in order for Athens to function as it were to be, Socrates has to be killed. Whether this is ethically correct, is another question. However, political reform would be seen as a threat to any form of government. Nowadays, we have extremist groups such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda that voice their opinions in terrorizing methods. They were considered harmful to societal practices as in order to demonstrate their beliefs, they adopt terrorization. This is comparable to Socrates’ “corrupting” practices. These might seem the right thing to do for Socrates, but for someone that believes in Greek gods and have them heavily questioned on their faith. It would just be an act of terrorization, trying to manipulate one’s belief. However, the only difference is that Socrates’ method corrupts the mind instead of kills one another. Again, in this context, it would seem that these extremist groups have to be taken down by the government since they engage in socially harmful practices. However, whether they are ethically right is another issue.

Source:

• Plato, et al. Four Texts on Socrates: Plato’s Euthyphro, Apology, and Crito, and Aristophanes’ Clouds. Cornell University Press, Ithaca [N.Y.], 1984.

Does Plato’s political theory apply to the U.S – a view from a foreigner

In Book VIII, Socrates elaborately identified and critiqued many forms of political systems. Socrates critiqued Aristocracy, Timocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny. Aristocracy, represented by Socrates’ Kallipolis, identifies that the society should be ordered in three classes, craftsmen, law-enforcers and the rulers. This society is organized by the inherent value of citizens, those most worthy in terms of knowledge and justice – The form of the good. Timocracy for Socrates is when the ruler of a political systems aims to rule in terms of ambition or honor instead of the form of the good. This would be represented by a ruler’s ambition for conquest and war. Timocracy is degenerated from Aristocracy and is the second best form of government. Oligarchy for Socrates is when a small part of the population rules over the majority. This creates diversity and that there is constant conflict between the majority and minority. These small group of ruling people possesses power and wealth. Hence, the poor are constantly in conflict to take the power and wealth from the rich. Democracy is then the variation from Oligarchy, where the society focuses on the equality of the spread of power. Plato referred that people in a democracy had the freedom to do whatever they wanted, which resembles anarchy. Plato uses the example of an oligarchic man and his democratic son, where the father is disciplined and makes money. Whereas his son has no discipline and spends all the money his father makes. In a chaotic democracy – towards the later stages, some tyrant will evolve and establish tyranny, which is the worse form of government. In the realm of chaos, someone will establish their presence but in the form of oppression over the public. This is the worse form of government as it is the most unjust and bad. (Plato’s Republic, Book VIII, and IX)

I only visited the U.S several times before actually coming to the U.S to study music at the Eastman School of Music. However, the U.S is not an unfamiliar country to me as most of the world does revolve around it. However, for most of the times, not for good reasons. People talk about the “American Dream” and I did not ever conceptualize the U.S as a dream, although attending Eastman was certainly a dream of mine while I was younger. The U.S is just so chaotic with problems such as race, religion, politics, and society. The bads definitely outweighed the goods of the country. I did not agree that it was a “dream” of any sort, if anything, it was more like a dystopia filled with problems. According to Plato, Democracy is a pretty bad type of political system as freedom is valued more than the wellbeing of society as a whole. I believe Plato’s theory is reflected in the U.S. There are shootings reflecting personal opinions regularly and the society is filled with many issues. I believe all this is due to the freedom that an individual is entitled to, causing individuals to promote their ideas and beliefs in unorthodox methods. There was a news article from the 2016 news article campaign, where I saw that various satirical presidential candidates such as “Deez-nuts” which is a 15-year-old from Iowa participated in the presidential elections. Although he did not win any elections, he did win roughly 8-9% of the votes. I just found it hard to comprehend that a 15-year-old could enter the presidential elections, this almost seemed that the 8-9% that voted for the 15-year-old are just trolls and saw politics as a meme or something.

With president Donald Trump in position, his provocative comments made towards the media just strikes me as absurd although it might not be directly related to the democratic system. The Guardian of a society should be wise and just. I believe for the U.S, they might have a president that does not acknowledge the form of the good or even show tyrannical qualities. The democracy that allowed every individual to vote for what they truly believe is good for society, in turn, was actually bad for society as a whole. I believe if the current situation continues to worsen, tyranny might possibly evolve out of the chaos.

The Epistemology of Gender

One of the most controversial topics right now is how the government should legislate concerning gender. Recently, our country’s administration has moved to pass legislation that would determine “gender as a biological, immutable condition determined by genitalia at birth”. This has sparked a massive amount of outrage across the country. In our most recent Philosophy class, we discussed Socrates’ theory of forms and we defined a few terms including epistemology. Let us imagine that there are such concepts as forms that exist and are true regardless of any belief. In the media, the argument often used against the proposed legislation is that “‘Transgender’ could be defined out of existence” (New York Times Article Title cited below). This strange claim packs a whole host of assumptions about the world that need to be unpacked. The idea that something can cease to exist by virtue of not being defined is in direct contrast to Socrates’ theory of forms. The true form of triangle existed long before any person tried to draw a material representation of one, and likewise, the transgender true form existed before any person attempted to embody it and before anyone attempted to put it in law. The next assumption is that believing to be something demands universal recognition. Note that the administration has not denied the rights of personhood to a single transgender person. There is agreement that the true form of personhood is what determines rights. But that is not enough for people who consider themselves transgender, they want everyone else to affirm their lifestyle. But if belief does not determine knowledge and true forms are not changed by anything in the material world than we have a contradiction. I may believe that I am water, or any other thing that is a part of me, but the true form of water is not changed by my belief. At the same time, I am still a representation of the true form of a personhood defined with rights under the law. Again note that there is no legislation regarding my belief concerning the water part of me. This distinction is extremely vital to understand when we consider transgender legislation. A person may be transgender even if they think they are not, and the true form of transgender is not changed by their belief. At the same time, a transgender person is still a representation of the true form of personhood defined with rights under the law. Thus it is utterly absurd to claim that legislation can determine the existence of something. No transgender person is denied any of the rights that every single other US citizen has by equal virtue of being a person. Note that this is the sense of the true form of the laws that we have; in other words, it is a separate argument to say that those laws have not been enacted fairly and that transgender people have been discriminated against. If that is the case, then we must call for greater law enforcement, NOT different legislation. Also note that this is NOT a partisan claim and that both sides should at least note that the media profits from political divide so they will occasionally make extremely illogical claims that confuse the general populace and stir up a great amount of anger. The real question here is whether or not people’s beliefs about themselves should be legislated and to what extent different people’s opinions should give them more or less or different rights. I do not claim to have an answer that would remotely satisfy such a question but I do hope that people will take it upon themselves to carefully process things logically and see the underlying assumptions that have rendered political discussions into yelling at one another in different dialects that are difficult to parse.

 

My thoughts on the Kallipolis and criticisms of Socrates

In Books, I and II of Plato’s The Republic, justice were viewed in different perspectives. Cephalus believes justice as having money and paying your taxes – complying with the law. Cephalus’ son, Polemarchus, believes that justice is to treat your friends well and treat your enemies badly. However, Thrasymachus gives an appealing argument, stating that justice is defined by the well-being and advantage of the stronger party over the weaker party. Socrates contested Thrasymachus stating that he promoted injustice as a virtue and that would be contradicting to wisdom which is a virtue. Socrates also pointed out that as justice is a virtue, being just would result in good health since virtue gives a healthy soul. Eventually, they enter a state of aporia when Thrasymachus does not want to argue with Socrates anymore. Although Socrates gives critical claims that contest with the several definitions of justice posed, Socrates himself does not actually provide a definition for what justice is.  (The Republic, Books I and II)

I believe Socrates does not give strong arguments in Book I. Firstly, his stance on the argument is trivial by not giving a definition, and yet he still was criticizing every definition or statement that others make. This could be a possible reason for why Thrasymachus acted so violently and was determined to prove Socrates wrong. It wasn’t until Book IV of the Republic did Socrates propose his idea of justice. The idea of the ideal city, Kallipolis. 

Upon my first exposure to the idea of the ideal city, I was very resistant to the idea of everything it proposed. The first thing that came to my mind was that this idea of the ideal city seemed like a totalitarian regime where everyone was monitored to be put in place, by auxiliaries. Commoners did not have the free will to do anything and that they could not contribute to politics no matter what. They are prisoners to their own political systems. Although guardians had the most power, they were not allowed to possess any wealth and required a lot of strict entry requirements. Socrates was questioned why would guardians be happy since they would not receive any wealth. Socrates argued the aesthetic focus of painting a statue should be holistic rather than particular. In context, Socrates argues the ideal city focus to maximize benefit on a whole rather than just a particular group. I believe this argument although answers the posed question it leaves part of it unanswered. It does not address those that are unsatisfied with the system. Auxiliaries had to be strictly just as they had to maintain order and receive education. They also had to sacrifice their lives if need be. At first glance, all this were just like a totalitarian regime that is used to oppress everyone in society. This related to a novel that I studied in high school named The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood. In a dystopian world, a religious regime manifests the protection of women by using extreme methods which neglect individual freedom of female, ultimately treating women as only tools for reproduction and societal continuity. I saw the ideal city a way which strives to promote “justice” and in turn, everyone became slaves to “justice”. At this time, I agreed more to Thrasymachus’ definition of justice. I believed the advantage of the strong is clearly reflected in our society and my criticisms to the ideal city and Gilead (the city of the regime in The Handmaid’s Tale) are that the citizens of both societies do not hold the same philosophy of the cities. My main criticism was that how would citizens fit into such a rigid and conform organization, the philosophies of the ideal city. It was just too difficult to conceptualize.

However, upon more in-depth study into The Republic, I started to detract the impression of the ideal city from Gilead. I understood more about Socrates’ intentions and how he used the form of the good to substantiate that citizens in the ideal city will value justice if everyone can maintain it. My concerns regarding the ideal city changed from how everyone would be happy in such a conformed society to how it is too theoretical for us to enact in real life and whether it will be of any substantial use to us as it is rather difficult for us to relate. With the various use of real-life examples that make connections to me, Socrates seemed to have persuaded me that it is more rewarding to be just and good than unjust and bad. I, as a very economically driven person, related deeply with his example of how the cycle of making money would not be as fulfilling when compared to making enough money and spending it in a fulfilling purpose. Socrates identified the motive of wanting to make money as a corrupting one. The soul is driven by logic which overpowers appetite and spirit.

In conclusion, Socrates’ analysis of the soul is fruitful and elaborate, where one can identify to it easily. It can be used for individuals as a motto to live better using a moderation of the three qualities of the soul – the three qualities of the soul in harmony. I personally believe a good life can be lived if everything is balanced out well, both mentally and practically. However, although the ideal city seems like the ultimate solution to injustice, there lies a lot of factors that it did not consider. Firstly, it is hard to apply it to real life as it is hard to find a group of people or anyone that is highly obedient and holds the same philosophy of the ideal city. Secondly, its peculiar traditions and norms such as the paring of males and females for the intentions of aristocratic purposes are absurd as it neglects the fundamental humanist quality of love. My main criticism lies with the ideal city’s ability to take care of individual thought and opinion. Socrates never really explained what he would do in treating the outliers of the system, he focused on the wellbeing of the whole not the particular. However, I believe the particular has to also be considered in order for the society to achieve perfection. His assumption of the perfect society would be hard to enact as we are also humans and we make mistake. The power of the society given totally to the guardians seem to be too dangerous, risky and resemble dictatorship more than a just society.

 

Sources:

• The Republic, W. M. A Grube, Second Edition

 

 

Reading Questions on Honig’s “Antigone’s Laments, Creo’s Grief”

This, as I said in class, is perhaps the most difficult and complex reading we’ll do this semester. It is formidably academic, with lots of references to names and concepts (like “structuralism”) that you may not understand. That’s fine. In other words, I don’t expect you to understand it all, though maybe someday, you will re-read it and more will make sense. The main goal, rather, is that you understand the basics of Honig’s reading of the play and how she uses this reading to develop a theoretical orientation toward politics. For her, the play partly illustrates the ways in which aspects of human life can never wholly fit within any political order: Homeric/aristocratic and democratic practices of mourning are incomplete, or so she argues. And this fact propels us, as the audience of this play, into political life and struggle.

At any rate, I’ve developed some reading questions that I hope will help you understand the play a bit better.

• Focus for a moment on Honig’s epigraph. What does the epigraph mean? In what sense is it true?
• What is Honig’s thesis? More specifically, what does she think “Antigone” is about?
• One way to get at this reading is to focus on how Honig interprets some of the main characters: what does the character Antigone represent? What does Creon represent?
• One of Honig’s more fascinating claims is that the play is not really about burying Polynices, but is instead about the question of how one should grieve in general (p. 7). Why does she emphasize this point?
• Honig also offers a critique of “dissident” politics (p. 8). What is her critique? You should think of this in two ways: first, you need to be able to explain why dissident politics does not adequately comprehend what is at stake in the play, and second, you need to think about what is possibly wrong with the idea of dissidence in general. Honig’s critique moves on both levels.
• How does Honig defend her idea that Creon actually represents democracy? Pay attention, first, to pp. 9-10, but also look to the other evidence she points out throughout the article.
• The first body section of Honig’s article contains a brief overview of traditional burial practices and some of the efforts to reform them. Try not to get too bogged down in details (though you might want to look up “goos” and “threnos”; Honig defines them, but google is also your friend here). What are some of the main features of the traditional burial rituals? What are some of the reforms that were being instituted during the time Sophocles was writing?
• In her second body section (starting on p. 13), Honig begins to make her case that the play is really about the clash between democratic and “Homeric” (or more specifically, aristocratic) burial practices. What is some of the evidence she presents?
• What is Honig’s interpretation of the Antigone’s use of the phrase “son of my mother” to describe Polynices (p. 15)?
• What is Honig’s interpretation of Antigone’s famous speech, wherein she declares that she would not have defied Creon’s orders for a son or a husband, because they would be, unlike her brother, replaceable (see pp. 16ff)
• Honig points out that Antigone’s reasoning about the irreplaceablity of her brother also cites another story from Herodotus, the story of Intaphrenes’ wife (see pp. 18-19). What is this story and how is it similar and different from Creon and Antigone’s interactions? What conclusion does Honig draw from her comparison of the two stories (p. 19, last two paragraphs, primarily)?
• What are some of the critiques of democracy embedded in the play, according to Honig?
• What are some of the democratic critiques of aristocracy that are embedded in the play, according to Honig?
• How does Honig interpret Eurydice’s death (pp. 22-24)?
• What is Honig’s conclusion about the play’s perspective on the rival positions it explores? Pay attention in particular to pp. 25ff.
• If the play is about mourning, then how does Creon mourn? Is his mourning more “democratic” or “aristocratic”?
• What does Creon’s grief ultimately have to tell us about human mourning and emotion, and their relations to politics?

Do we have control of our own fates?

Are we ever in control of our own fate? I believe we are actually in control of our own fates unlike what is proposed in “Oedipus the King”. I believe that we humans can make a lot of choices and although there are unexpected events that happen occasionally or often in our own lives, we humans are adaptive beings and always puts our interests first hence we will be able to control our own fates. For instance, Beethoven started to become deaf when he was 26 and it gradually worsened until when he was 46 he lost almost all of his hearing. (Taken from link 1) However, he was still able to compose great music including symphonies, quartets, and many others. How can he still do this? Well, he had the determination and passion. When he started to become deaf, it was known that he would bite a metal rod from his teeth and connect it to the piano in order to listen for vibrations at best as his can by bone conduction. (Taken from link 2) This showed his ability to adapt and also his intelligence. Although our ears might be one of the most important things to us musicians, I can’t imagine not ever being able to listen to music ever again. You can still anticipate theory, watch performances, or compose music, however, I believe that it will never be the same again. You are not hearing the music, you are merely watching a person doing strokes on the violin or pressing keys on a keyboard. It wasn’t the same for Beethoven, he had the determination and found ways to cope with his disabilities. He had control of his own fate. I have to clarify that having control of our own fate does not mean that we can live the perfect life that we want to live in. Beethoven had many suspected health problems that historians proposed.

I believe for Oedipus, Sophocles has made the circumstances of Oedipus too extreme to relate for the average person. He had no chance to change his fate since by the time the play started he already has married his mother and murdered his father. Therefore, it is really hard to relate to the average person in modern society. For the modern-day society, it is really difficult for one to relate to his extreme circumstances and it was as if life was doomed for Oedipus. Apart from Oedipus, characters that are linked to him are affected tragically as well since they are all connected and the entire family just fell apart.

However, for the majority of us, I believe that life is not doomed like Oedipus’ or the tragic lives of characters connected to him. Although there might be extreme situations when you are born into a starving family which has none to eat or Terrorist family that raises you to become a terrorist, the world is becoming a better place and with that comes the extent of fate we can control. The more well off we are, the more the choices we can make and the more the power we have to control the life that we want to live in. As the world becomes a better place, we would have fewer bumps and fewer tragedies that happen to us in which would result in a better life for every one of us to live.

Links:

1 – https://hearinghealthmatters.org/hearinginternational/2011/hearing-beethoven-part-ii-the-medical-conclusion/

2 – http://www.goldendance.co.jp/English/boneconduct/01.html

Readings for Next Week (Sept. 17-21): Thucydides “Pericles’ Funeral Oration,” “The Plague of Athens,” and “The Melian Dialogue”

In our next set of readings, we are moving from tragic plays to the history writing. Specifically, we are reading excerpts of Thucydides “History of the Peloponnesian War.” Thucydides was an Athenian, and he served as a general during that war. In his major engagement, he unsuccessfully attempted to keep the city of Amphipolis from being conquered by the Spartans. For this, he was exiled, and he spent the rest of the war writing his history. Thucydides’ history is the first we know of that attempted to do what we might call “rational” or scientific history. He does not make any reference to supernatural or fantastical events (such as the gods). Rather, he gathers evidence and attempts to reason from cause to effect.

So before reading these texts, you should know a few issues. First, after the Athenians defeated the Persians at the battle of Salamis (480 BCE), Athens became the head of a collection of alliances known as the Delian League. Over time, this set of alliances effectively became an Athenian empire, with Athens forcing alliance members to pay tribute to Athens for protection. The result was that Athens and her allies/subjects started to come into a rivalry with the other major power int he region, Sparta. Eventually, in 431 BCE, Sparta and Athens went to war. This is known as the Peloponnesian War, and it lasted until 404 BCE, when Athens was finally defeated.

The readings we are looking at are Thucydides’ account of a few early events in the war. In the first, “The Funeral Oration,” Thucydides recounts a speech that the Athenian leader, Pericles, gave after the first year of the war. When reading the speech, focus on two things: Pericles’ account of Athenian virtues, and how his discussion of mourning might compare to the conflicts about mourning that occur in “Antigone.” Finally, since Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address” used Pericles’ “Funeral Oration” as its model, I’m also going to recommend you read Lincoln too. You can find the “Gettysburg Address” here.

The second reading, “The Plague of Athens,” is Thucydides’ depiction of a  key event from the second year of the war. In 429 BCE, with people from the countryside taking refuge in the city of Athens, a plague breaks out and kills an enormous number of people, including Pericles. Pay attention, then, to how Thucydides juxtaposes Pericles’ statement about Athenian virtues to how the Athenians react to the plague.

And finally, there is the “Melian Dialogue,” which we will discuss on Wednesday of next week. This dialogue is set in 416 BCE. Melos was an island city-state, and since Athens was a naval power, they believed that Melos should join the Athenian empire. However, the Melians were related to Sparta (it had started originally as a Spartan colony), and so they wanted to remain neutral. The dialogue, then, represents the discussion of why Athens did not think that Melos could retain its neutrality.

Welcome Students for Fall of 2018 (and some reading questions about Oedipus)

Welcome to the new students for the course, “The Ancient Greeks,” taught at the Eastman School of Music in the fall of 2018. Throughout the semester, I will try to develop reading questions on the day’s reading. There is no assignment associated with these questions. They are only designed to get you to think about the kinds of issues you should be thinking about as you do the reading. Since our first reading is Sophocles’ play, “Oedipus the King,” here are the questions I’d like you to consider:

• Here’s the general question you should be grappling with throughout your reading of the play. If a tragic narrative depicts a kind of inevitable disaster, then what is the source of the “inevitability” in this play?  Or another way of coming at this same question is this: Oedipus is a tragic hero who is finally undone by forces that are much greater than he is.  What are these forces?  What do they represent?  A quick set of issues about this question: there is no “right” answer, but some are better than others; second, it is useful to try to start with specifics.  What is the precise nature of the problem Oedipus faces?
• What is Oedipus like? List out some characteristics he appears to have; use specific examples from the text to illustrate the characteristics you identify.
• One of the peculiarities of Sophocles’ play is that he depicts the “tragic” decisions Oedipus makes as having already happened; the fateful events of Oedipus’ life have already occurred at the time the action of the play takes place. What are the effects of this way of telling Oedipus’ story?
• What is Creon like? What are his characteristics?
• What are some of the ironies of Oedipus’ life?Explain in detail.
• What are some of the ironies in Oedipus’ search for the truth? Please note that Oedipus searches for truth on several different occasions; he searches for Laius’ murderer; he searches for his own origins, and so on.  What is the result of these searches?
• Consider the metaphor of “sight” in this play, especially in the interaction between (seeing) Oedipus and (blind) Tiresius. What does “seeing” mean in their interaction? What ironies are there in this meaning?  And what is the significance of Oedipus’ decision to stab out his own eyes once he learns (“sees”) the truth?
• One common interpretation of tragedy is that the tragic hero has a “flaw” that brings about his demise. Does Oedipus have a tragic flaw?  If so, what is it?  If not, what is “responsible” for bringing about his demise? What effects do we produce when we think that Oedipus’ tragic flaw is the reason he is destroyed?