It's so intriguing. I propose Drunk Tragedy, a play on Drunk History.
Right now I'm assigned a paper on Sophoclean agents that I'm actually kind of excited to delve into. I was a firm believer that people back in the day were all silly/stupid, but without the extreme complications of current life (money, job, economy, systems) that we face today*, I feel that people were better able to perfect their crafts. Are we really smarter than we were 1000+ years ago?
Preface: The next part is on a different level and may not make any sense to you so just beware. I'm bad at communicating my ideas in a way that is comprehensible to most people, but I am aware that you are not most people. Also, I admit I will feel a little crazy if you don't publish your own thoughts about all this.
The Q: Are we really smarter than we were 1000+ years ago?
This is relevant to philosophy especially - when you don't have a 9-5 job and your role in society is to simply think, philosophers came up with really universal topics that are relevant today. I'm beginning to think that if I could just figure out how to communicate these universal truths, conflicts, etc I'd be able to better navigate through life and also write a movie script that appeals to the general public. I've applied this question to what we think today of our intellectual capabilities in the scientific fields as well. Yes, it is true that we've come up with technologies that are advanced, but we're just building on existing knowledge base. People say that it should have technologies have exponentially advanced, but when machines are doing more of the thinking/work for us, that is expected. In turn, I want to make an amendment to this notion that growth has been exponential. I feel that we've been giving too much credit to man. Yes, man is the manipulator/inventor, but machines and numbers deserve some credit for our advancements. Anyways, that is another theory for another day. Now I'm off topic.
What I started off trying to say was that Sophocles really figured out the personalities and interactions between these personalities in conflict within tragedy. Am I wrong to assume/believe that he was educated in astrology, the beliefs of which explain various personalities. It was a prevalent idea at the time** (still is in some circles) so it could have very well been? I feel very uneasy about publishing such false statements. The point is, personalities don't seem to have changed very much throughout the years. We can still relate to the personalities of these characters and their actions. I find that really intriguing. It would be interesting to study the evolution of personalities, but this task would prove so daunting in the human species given the myriad of extrinsic factors. Factors such as: personalities are adaptable to situations and undergo a type of evolution that is dependent on time/age. Again, I'm getting off topic. Simply put, I find it fascinating the degree to which Sophocles understood human interactions and personalities. He understood it so well he was able to create a play revolving around these characters and invoking a greater message through them.
I am still thinking about the accepted standard societal codes of conduct, as I've just named them. I'm referring to the left-right dance, method of ending a conversation comfortably, etc. Sophocles surely has the answers to this. If only he wrote down that you must go right in one of his poems. Perhaps it was in the lost section in Aeschylus's Suppliant Maidens.
*This was to imply that we face more today then back then, but I'm beginning to think the degrees to what we face are pretty similar. Sophocles lived through a war, much like we are. These topics of life and death, politics, and morals are so relevant. I suppose these a universal human conditions and topics to be explored.
** I have no idea when astrology came about, or if it originated in the East or West. It was surely during polytheistic times.
No comments:
Post a Comment