Ancient Greek Literature: Tragic Heroes - Essay Example

1.0 Tragic Heroes Ancient Greek literature is rich with stories of heroes who suffer a tragic faith in spite of their praiseworthy deeds. Aristotle identifies six characteristics of tragic heroes and they are the following: of noble birth, committed a flaw or error in judgment in spite of his wisdom, suffered a reversal of fortune, realized that his own actions resulted to his misfortune, must the audience make the audience feel a dramatic irony and that the characters fate must be greater than deserved. Agamemnon is certainly a tragic hero for he satisfies all the criteria laid out by Aristotle. He was certainly of noble birth being the son of King Atreus and Queen Aerope. He was a hero because he led the Greek armies against Troy and was victorious. However, for him to achieve this, he committed the error of sacrificing his daughter Iphigenia to be able to sail to Troy. This was to be the reason for his horrific murder by his wife, Clytemnestra. In spite of gaining honour for Greece, Agamemnon suffered not only from his wife’s infidelity and wrath but also from the loss of loyalty of his people because he was not told of his wife’s treachery. Philoctetes is not much of a tragic hero because his story ended not in his demise but in victory and honour. Philoctetes was of the nobility because he was the son of King Poeas of Meliboea in Thessaly. His error in judgment was his loyalty to Heracles but this is not the type of error that would make the audience feel a dramatic irony. His misfortune was being injured and being exiled to an island by the Greeks due to the complications of his injury. Again, this does not evoke any ironic feelings. Pentheus certainly suffered a tragic faith being torn limb from limb by his mother and aunt. He was certainly of the nobility because he was King of Thebes and committed a flaw in judgment when he banned the worship of Dionysius. However, Pentheus lacks the heroic deeds that Agamemnon and Philoctetes achieved. In this sense, his story was only tragic but he was not much of a hero. (Hamilton, 1998) 2.0 Socrates in China Philosophical thinking was not confined to Europe alone as nations such as China boasts of scholars who had influential views on matters pertaining to life and value systems. Two such scholars are Confucius and Lao Tzu. The beliefs and value of these two giants in Chinese philosophy became the guiding principles of Confucianism and Taoism. Our concern now is to determine who of these two will Socrates share more similarities. Taoism believes that one’s chief task is to seek the Three Jewels called compassion, moderation and humility. Taoists believe that people are compassionate by nature and will show this compassion without expecting a reward when they are left to their own devices. The similarity between Lao Tzu and Socrates is that they were thorough critics of the culture from which they originated. Their philosophies are marked by expositions on how the prevailing values, standards and activities of their societies are inherently ineffective. The two philosophers had similarity in opinion when they stated that the most important thing for a man to achieve was to know his self. However, even though there is a connection between the two, Socrates would find that Taoists have a quite different view of reality, a different ontology. This is because Taoists are inclined to be speaking in intangible terms as compared to Socrates whose philosophies can be applied in practical matters. Instead of letting nature take its course, man should take a more proactive role in the development of society. The previous statement serves as the basis by which Socrates would find Confucianism to be comfortable relating with. Disciples of both Confucius and Socrates find themselves spending much of their time and energy in the study of right and wrong and what constitutes the good society. They were to acquire an understanding of what constitutes justice and how it is the single most important factor of political life. Religion was important to Socrates and Confucius. Instead of dealing more with religion in rather vague terms and in placing more emphasis to the supernatural, Confucius and Aristotle were more concerned with understanding human beings and how we can improve ourselves than in attempting to understand the nature of the universe. Both authors also promote the virtue of tempered courage and also argued on the indispensability of wisdom for a man. Essentially, Socrates and Confucius had the same beliefs. The only difference was that Socrates delved deeper into specifics of government types and also had transcendental discussions both of which Confucius lacked. (West, 2001) 3.0 Greeks and Democracy Democracy is basically defined as “rule by the people” and its origin can be traced back to Ancient Greece in the city-state of Athens. However, it is interesting to note that their concept of democracy then was only confined to all free-born male citizens and effectively excluded women, slaves and foreigners. The rule by the people was the rule by all free-born Athenian male citizens. (Benn, 2004) While Greeks have been highly regarded in their initiative to make governance all-inclusive (for men that is), one will be surprised to know that all the major Greek philosophers disapproved of governance by so many people. Aristotle claimed that too much variety results to too much competing interests resulting to chaos rather than purposive and deliberate action. It would be hard to reach a consensus and in the desire to reach for one, there would usually be a single charismatic individual to whom most members of the Assembly will grant their confidence. This person, as in the case for Athens, was chosen not by his individual worth or judicious thoughts but by his strong presence and oratorical skills. The result was that decisions made by the body can sometimes be foolish because of the restricted knowledge of the charismatic leader. One can also expect the fast turnover of power due to the fact that support can easily wane overnight. In The Republic, Plato criticizes democracy as allowing people to follow all their passions and drives without order or control. Having all the people have a say on the issues affecting society will achieve little because all people will be inclined to pursue their own interests. It should also be noted that Thucydides, a historian and not a philosopher, also disapproved of democracy also of the same reasons. For Plato and Aristotle, the best form of government was the ruling of select individuals that has proven track record and a good judgement. A ‘rule by the best’ is more favourable than a ‘rule by all people’. Both Greek philosophers really believed that only the smartest, most temperate, most mature, most reflective, most educated, and the bravest should be in charge of government). 4.0 Socrates as a Sophist In his version of the Apology, Plato is said to be recounting the trial of Socrates who was accused of committing injustice because he was corrupting young individuals by inquiring into the nature of the heavens and the earth, questioning the existence and roles of traditional deities which was accepted by the state and making "the weaker argument appear the stronger". He is said to be guilty of being a Sophist. The word ‘Sophist’ was originally taken to denote class of highly valued intellectuals who taught courses in "excellence" or "virtue", who speculated about the nature of language and culture and who employed rhetoric to achieve their purposes, generally to persuade or convince others. However, one will come to know in the Apology by Plato that ‘sophists’ are greedy instructors who use rhetorical sleight-of-hand and ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious reasoning. In this view, the sophist is not concerned with truth and justice but seeks power instead. This is the reason why the general public came to hate sophists and the main reason why Socrates is on trial. (Lesby, 1996) Reading the Apology, one can see that Socrates was indeed making use of ambiguities of language when he argued about the meaning of being an atheist and that of corrupting the young. According to him, he was not an atheist because he recognizes that there are semi-gods and deities. He was not able of ‘corruption’ because it is an incoherent idea that only emanated by his inquiry into the nature of things and exposition of the inconsistencies in the belief and political systems present in society. Does this mean then that Socrates was a Sophist? I believe that he is not one at all. Despite making use of ambiguities to achieve his purpose of being acquitted, Socrates is not guilty of deceiving and supporting fallacious reasoning. In fact, his reasoning was remarkably logical. His arguments were not designed to fool the public but to expose the irrationality of the charges against him. It was true that he was persuading other people of his innocence and he was using his eloquence in the process but it is also equally true that he was indeed innocent and was only a victim of too much publicity. He was not a man who corrupted other people. He was a curious, wise one whose reasoning bears truth and justice. Reference: Hamilton, Edith (1998). Mythology. US: Back Bay Books. West, M.L. (2001). Early Greek Mythology and the Orient. Oxford University Press. Lesby, Alvin (1996). History of Greek Literature. US: Hackett Pub Co Inc. Benn, A.W. (2004).Early Greek Philosophy. US:Kissinger Publishing. Read More