Ana içeriğe atla

Certainty in Antigone

 

 

Antigone and Ismene establish what they view as certain at the outset of the play. Ismene, understandably, asserts that Antigone is aiming to do something impossible and in doing so she will meet her demise. In Ismene's perception, because Antigone will not be able to accomplish her mission, she should not attempt to do it. She calls her mad. Madness is here important because it refers to concepts or actions that are contrary to what one views certain. For instance, when Antigone touches upon her desire to bring her deceased brother to the sacred lands, Ismene calls it rushing to extremes as she thinks it is against the laws to which they as women should abide for they are women who cannot “content with men” (line 75). She says "I must obey the ones who stand in power" (line 80) which goes to show that to Ismene obeying rules is a certain obligation that nothing can negate. Just after saying this, she deems Antigone's outlaw desire madness because it is against what she views certainly an obligation. Here it is important to understand the core reason Antigone and Ismene are disagreeing: the clash of family and the state. While Antigone is ignoring the state and its judicial power over her because of her love for her brother, for Ismene obeying the laws of the state stands at a higher importance. Both sisters are standing at the very opposites of this clash between family and state yet they are very certain of their stance. Such extreme disagreement is also present in the clash of death and the living. Antigone says “have longer to please the dead than please the living here: in the kingdom down below”(lines 87-88) which explains that Antigone values her personal convictions to be more important than living while Ismene is not. Both have their justifiable reasons, for Antigone, her brother deserves religious redemption and for Ismene, it will get her killed and is against laws (religion vs laws). This portrays the theme of certainty most interesting because both characters’ stances can be justified depending on the lens the audience looks at which makes the whole meaning of the play reliant on the audience. In other words, the meaning conveyed in the play differs depending on where you look.

Moreover, while Ismene is fitting to conformity and obeying the societal and legal laws, Antigone is not which In Ismene’s eyes renders her mad. However, it is important to question why Antigone is not calling Ismene mad because in her view, Ismene’s actions are also contrary to what Antigone believes to be certainly right. The reason is that Ismene is basing her personal convictions on a premise that is accepted or established by the rulers or/and the public. By doing so, she acquires the power to deem Antigone outlandish, ergo, mad.  She says “Then too, we’re underlings, ruled by much stronger hands, so we must submit in this, and things still worse”. Here the fact that she initially says “we are women” and refers to women in general, and also the fact that she says “submit … things still worse”(lines 73-75) (denoting that it is something she finds unpleasant) implies that she is referring to a general opinion rather than merely her personal conviction. Ismene does this intentionally because she is implying that Antigone is not only mad in her eyes but in the eyes of the public or the rulers. This goes to show that Certainty plays an important role in determining whether someone is an outcast or a member of society. Antigone is certain about an idea that is deemed incorrect by the lawmakers (and hence society) and she is viewed as mad. Combining this with the idea that meaning differs depending on where you look, it becomes clear that the play is suggesting that certainty that is erected on unstable structures, norms, and beliefs should not determine one’s position in society.

 

Yorumlar

Yorum Gönder

Bu blogdaki popüler yayınlar

Rhetoric in Hobbes' Leviathan

  Hobbes’ Word Play Hobbes argues in favor of a monarch or an oligarch. To be more precise, he is in favor of the idea that multiplicity comes with complexity, harming the integrity of the state. In his opinion, men are mostly power-driven, greedy beings who must surrender themselves to a sovereign power that can spread the terror of punishment. According to Hobbes, this fear of punishment is the only effective motivating force that can keep people from brutally murdering each other. While this Hobbesian idea of the state portrays the sovereign’s subjects almost as though they are slaves, this essay will argue that Hobbes is not fundamentally against liberty and allows it within the constraints of laws. Hobbes's description of liberty suggests that only external impediments are against freedom. He states that liberty is “the absence of external impediments” (189) and, although these impediments may take away man’s power to do what he would, they do not prevent men from using th...
1 yorum
Devamı

Rousseau on Legitimacy of State

Hobbes'dan sonra Rousseau okumayı Proust'tan sonra Daphnes ve Chloe okumaya benzetiyorum. Proust aşkı öyle yapay, çıkarcı ve öyle çirkin yansıtıyor ki, ondan sonra okuduğun her romana ister istemez Proust'un realist bakış açısından bakıyorsun. Belki de realizm sevdamı bırakmalıyımdır. Hobbes'un determinist bakış açısı da birçok argümanını epey ikna edici kılıyor. Bazen bu bakış açısından kaçmak istiyor insan. Hobbes kimmiş lan, ben ölümlü tanrıya irademi falan teslim edemem, gayet özgürüm demek istiyor. Yine de gel gör ki Hobbes haklı. Nasıl, Kant ödev ahlakında nasıl ki herkes davranışlarının topluma yansıdığını varsayarak hareket etmeli diyorsa, Hobbes da yapılmak istemediğini yapma diyor. Buna karşı çıkmak da biraz zor. Rousseau abi Social Contract'ında denese de Emile kitabındaki ikna ediciliğini devam ettiremiyor gibi hissediyorum. Birazdan okuyacak olduğun yazıda da oldukça soyut fikirler göreceksin ve yer yer kendine e ama niye diye soracaksın. Bil ki ben de ...
Yorum Gönder
Devamı

Hobbes’ Paradox

Hobbes’ Paradox Resolved According to Hobbes, people are born with passions that ultimately lead them into a never-ending war. They require artificial power to stop killing each other. Unless such a power is erected, Hobbes suggests, leaving the state of nature is impossible since people are not inclined to cooperate and trust each other. The core reason why it is impossible to leave the state of nature is because of the innate passions people have that drive them to be constantly in conflict. Hobbes states that in the condition of nature, “any reasonable suspicion” renders any covenant or promise invalid since “bonds of words are too weak to bridle men’s ambition, avarice, anger, and other passions…” (196). Here, Hobbes highlights the importance of punishments, suggesting that without the motivating fear of punishments, covenants are practically invalid. It is also important to understand what Hobbes means by the condition of nature. He argues that because men are born equal, they...
Yorum Gönder
Devamı