Laurentius

I've got to go now, but I think that the tragedy needs an individual hero (consciousness is vague - one can turn any bad ending story into a tragedy then, which would be an abuse) that detaches him/herself from the others. Unfortunately I don't have time to elaborate.

AVE

PS and I'm not necessarily an Eagles' fan but I was curious what a Westerner makes of that story

[ April 24, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

WJ

Lau!


Please do, elaborate, when you get the time. [Your] "vagueness" pervades society and thinking when we talk about values, goals, achievements, failures, and so on.

Achieving success for one person may not mean the same things to another... if that's what you mean.

The question might be whether the 'hero' is in one's mind?

Walrus

Laurentius

THE HERO
First of all, I'm not referring to contemporary tragedies that tend to turn any unfulfilled destiny into a tragedy. It is not a bad ending that matters, but the failure of a hero to survive his own heroic act.

EXCELLENCE
The birth of tragedy coincides to the ancient mentality that there was only few people able to reach excellence, through their exceptional qualities: the heroes.

THE COMMON GOOD
The tragic hero is not the one who dies while selfishly trying to appropriate stuff and slaves, but the one that fights for a common good in which the community believes.

ASSUMED DESTINY
Now, this fight is usually assumed by the hero because he is endowed with the strength of character that is required by the task.

THE ADVERSARY: AN ABSOLUTE LIMIT
The task is about a limit that common people find impossible to exceed - an absolute one. The greatest achievment of the hero will be the relativization of this limit, that will take the form of a dictatorial law, inevitable fate, etc.

THE TRAGIC HERO
The hero then is an exceptionally endowed human being (characterized by great personality traits) who struggles to break an absolute limit for the sake/on behalf of his fellow humans and is crushed in the event. The hero and his adversary represent two equally justified (sets of) values, only that the adversary is physically more powerful - and the hero knows it. Despite him being aware of his tragic end, the hero pursues his goal with the relativization of the limit in view.

Notice please how Oedip or Antigone or you name them (I mean the ancient ones) end tragically because of their very pursuing their goal. The more Oedip searches for the truth, the closer he is by his tragic end. The more Antigone follows the rule dictated by tradition (but coming agains Creon's edict) the surer she is going to end tragically. There is no blunder or accident in their non-happy ending: they know what is going to happen but they have to complete their heroic destiny in order for the community to benefit from their sacrifice.

I was fascinated by the Greek tragedy in my youth. Nowadays we live in a different mentality. I personally enjoy Kafka and I deeply regret he committed suicide and did not dedicate his life to writing more. In Kafka we can see a tragic - comic hero, that is not exceptional any more (an antihero in fact), but this is not tragedy any more, I think. It is the absurd. In the ancient time the sacrifice of the hero was full of significance: cathartic and enlightening. Kafka's hero's sacrifice is devoid of meaning: anguish and absurd in full swing.

I hope it is now clear why the "Titanic" fails to match the categories I mentioned above, from many perspectives and I preferred not to go into its analysis because it is a little degrading. There are so many other contemporary movies that deserve that. Unfortunately, my busy schedule hinders me from watching them more than occasionally.

AVE

WJ

Lau!

Indeed, there are some contemporary movies that capture the finitude of human living [movies that are based on Existentialism]. As we know, Forrest Gump is another one. To that end, does the character Forrest, fit your criteria as tragic hero?

It seems if it does, then the 'tragedy' was life itself. Is this what makes human's turn to Platonic Gods for answers? In other words, based on our modern day existence, why do you think it was necessary for the Greeks to invent such 'things' in their minds? Was the 'essence' of their existence any different than ours?

Is that what you mean by the birth of a tragedy?


Walrus

[ April 25, 2002: Message edited by: WJ ]</p>

Laurentius

Definetely, the ancient Greeks sensed the tragic differently.

Life was preditermined, though not intrinsically tragic. There was some scope for one to make one's will. That is, one could take a Homeric hero as a model and struggle to live up to him. Despite the fact they invented democracy, these Greeks were quite elitistic. Only few were able to reach the heights and most of those who did were struck by "hubris" (the tragic guilt, as it is tought in high school).

Now, Forrest Gump was interesting (rather due to Tom I guess), but he fails to be a hero, in the tragic sense anyway. On the contrary, he turns out quite fine, which makes the movie a melodrama actually.

First, clacisism was promoting the same kind of universal values. Then Romanticism was promoting individuality - this does not match what the old Greeks had in mind. Then Realism and Naturalism were observing people as they were, either normal or abnormal. Modernism was the age of the superior writer, and Postmodernism - where we're supposed to be situated now - is mixing everyting up: all that has been so far, New Age, Democracy, Globalism and God knows what else. Forrest Gump is a mixture of naturalism, super-democratic spirit, day drama, sitcom and one man show.

And the feather in the end can't by any means represent the proud human stubborness of the Greek hero, but the postmodern taoist spirit of the de-sacralized new age fan.

AVE

WJ

Lau!

"And the feather in the end can't by any means represent the proud human stubborness of the Greek hero, but the postmodern taoist spirit of the de-sacralized new age fan."

Indeed. The antithesis of Greek intellectualism. Obviously, there is a balance between the two methods of thought.

Because physical science teaches us that physical life and existence is primarily in a state of flux, the feather symbolized the journey to this ultimate uncovery of irrational existence. The journey that says the dynamics of change, like a plant, is a better metaphor for human, conscious existence. As apposed to a mathematical formula of how one shall not only live a life, but a faith in timeless concepts derived exclusively from the mind.

The hero does not exist outside the mind. The hero dies with death(?). Quite an irony, no?

In that sense who, I wonder, is de-sacralized? The Existential thinker, or the Greek thinker? Or both? In other words, did Greek mythology consider immortality viz. intellectualism as absolute truth?

Walrus

Laurentius

This thing with the mind confuses me. What can a definition of the hero be in which the mind could fit? And what mind are we talking about? Frankly, I cannot figure out where you're getting at.

The feather being blown away by the wind simbolizes the man riding on the crest of the Tao wave, maybe, preaching a joyful fatalism I cannot subscribe to.

One's life nowadays is not heroical, in general, and the pervading individualism accounts for this new attitude. The same individualism stand at the root of what I meant by desacralization as well. The Greek hero reflected perhaps those people's ambition to cultivate the attributes that might have made them able to compare with gods in virtues and capacity. Nowadays there is no real sacred model that may lead one in his/her day-to-day life. The Greek sacred world was temporally circular, and time (that is life) was determined by events with religious significance. Even the Taoists believed in a supradivine frame that made everything go acording to metaphisical laws that excaped the frail human control. The new age man of today may speak of waves and particles, of fields and force lines, within which the soul of the universe resides, and from which spiritual sparks shoot all over the space - it simply makes wonder how physics can mix buddhism so freely, when there's no connection between spirit and matter.
AVE

[ May 12, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

WJ

AVE!

Sorry I've been tied-up a bit here of late. I'd like to continue the discussion along the lines of the existential theme viz. taoistic 'wave'. Let me post a critique of Forrest Gump which I think you might find quite interesting and, may speak to your concerns [the distinctions-virtues and vices] over postmodernism...

I'll try to find it and re-post.

Walrus