Skip to main content

Why Can't We All Get Along?-Rachael Gregson

 


Upon further analyzation, this book seems to be chock full of conflict, not just with one feud but many. First, there's the undeniably obvious tension between the old and new gods. We can see this in the way they "pick" a certain human to stand behind or stand against, just like they did in Orestes's case. The Furies, who are considered apart of the old gods, are still bitter about the switch to Zeus's reign. Because of the change of rule, they are now seen as outcasts in the eyes of the young gods and causing Apollo's favored Orestes mischief is their way of going down swinging. These powers represent two opposing sides. Apollo is everything male, civilized, and logical, whereas the Furies are everything female, ancient, and savage. This book is special in the fact that it portrays a world in which both human and god alike are at a place where either old or new ways must be chosen. 

The second conflict is between different types of morality. Maybe perhaps both sides are right in a sense? Maybe the truth lies somewhere between Orestes and the Furies? After all, in that certain time, vengeance wasn't taken as a crime. It was even expected, so in Orestes's defense, he was just righting a wrong. But I can also side with the Furies (even though they probably did have hidden motives). He did slaughter the woman who brought him into life, and that just seems a little too ghastly for me. By the end of the book, I walked away having learned that sometimes people have their own moral code and that doesn't make them any more right or wrong. 

Here's something to chew on though: 

There's a longstanding pattern in this family that definitely shows why revenge is never the answer. I can honestly see why "an eye for an eye" is not effective. Bloodshed will continue even after Orestes kills his mother, which makes me want to dig deeper into this story line. Does the cycle ever end for this family?

I commented on posts by Jacob Clabo and Haylee Lynd.

Comments

  1. Abigale BellSeptember 20, 2020 at 2:33 PM

    Hi Rachael! Your post was very interesting to read! I defintely see the different sides of conflict in this play. What is Ancient Greece without its conflicts? You mentioned the battle between old and new; this is a conflict that I didn't see right away, but I can ceratinly see it now. I think there is always a struggle when a new way of thinking or governing comes around. Change is a difficult thing and it is not always easy to see whether new is better. In Orestes' case, maybe it was better.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ian BlairSeptember 21, 2020 at 10:14 AM

    I think one of the main morals of the story of Agamemnon's family is that sometimes there is no satisfactory ending. Sometimes the worst case scenario, in this instance a never-ending cycle of kill and be killed, is the outcome that materializes from the choices that are made. An eye for an eye is never really effective, that much is true, but I can't help but feel like the gods based their own allegiances and alliances on that mentality. That would mean that humans and other creatures of various kinds would do the same because the gods are the models and influencers of the world around them. The clash of old and new moralities is definitely one that I myself noticed, but I think that Athena quelled the conflict good enough for everyone to walk away not feeling slighted.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Lovers of Wisdom, Not Power—Lily Caswell

In Book VIII of Plato’s Republic, Socrates talks about the possibility of having a well-governed city. However, he also talks about how that particular form of government is impossible to have. A well-governed city becomes a possibility only if you can discover a better way of life for your future rulers than holding office.” (Plato, p 215) Maybe his version of a better life was for those in office to not be lovers of power, since it would then become a fight among rival lovers. Socrates gets to the point that the only rulers who don’t love power are true philosophers. Philosophers are lovers of wisdom and knowledge and not power, ergo they are the perfect rulers. Absolute power corrupts and power corrupts absolutely, so I’m thinking that maybe the trick to being a good ruler is for you to be a philosophical person who loves wisdom and not power. I commented on Jamie’s and Isabelle’s posts.
4 comments
Read more

How to Make a Clone - Clabo

I found books three and four to be very cringy. I mean, to me the idea of structurally producing good soldiers/guardians through heavy censorship is somewhat inhumane. I feel as if human beings should be allowed to experience every bit of knowledge they can at some point in their lives. To me, it seems as if the guardians are being guarded against information throughout their entire lives so they can solely fulfill the duties they were birthed into.  However, the influence and importance Plato places on poetry and music do make me wonder what it would be like if we had the same values as our military today. What if the United States military invested in the souls of its soldiers and placed within them emotional and intellectual values outside of what they have learned previously. Perhaps the military instills values and principles within soldiers to fulfill the same purpose as the guardians would in Plato's Republic and that is to only be that which the government wants you to be....
5 comments
Read more

Dystopian Origins Uncovered ////// Isabelle Ferguson

  I think that ideas eventually run out of originality and circle back to the original idea. During this week's reading, many of Socrates’ suggestions for a place of perfection reminded me of some novels I’ve read depicting dystopian worlds. Disclaimer: There are spoilers ahead. You have been warned.        To begin, in  The  Giver  by Lois Lowry censorship is a major theme. The novel is centered around a boy who is receiving memories withheld from the population! The government in The Giver is especially careful to censor the memories that may cause strife, anger, fear, sadness, etc. In the adults, this society is cemented. So, the government is especially strict with the youth. Socrates talks about verses to “obliterate” to prevent the descriptions from doing “harm to our future warriors” for the better half of Book III (Plato, page 44). The warriors he speaks of are the youth. He goes on to list the multitude of verses that should be done ...
7 comments
Read more