11/04/2019 Alexander Rimerov PD 7

11/04/2019 Alexander Rimerov PD 7

Aim: How are death and morality approached in the Oedipus Trilogy?

Do Now: Suicide is a controversial topic because across cultures and time periods, the

perspective and purpose has evolved. Japanese Samurais would stab themselves

through the chest when faced with defeat, Japanese Kamikazi pilots would fly to their

deaths during wartime, Islamic suicide bombers would do the same. 

Think about how suicide is used in Antigone and compare it across time periods and

cultures. What kind of clout does suicide have? Why does/doesn’t it bear the same

weight now and today?

The lesson started off with a strong with a violent debate that was surprisingly

one-sided

• Everyone agreed that suicide of the past was regarded to be more honorable
• than suicide of the now. 

However, the real debate centered around the morality around the suicide of the now.
This question had the room split up into two main groups: those who believed suicide of

the now is selfish and those who believed it’s the fault of circumstances and not the individual. 
Steven led our discussion citing how the Japanese treated suicide in their culture. 

• He stated that back then, “suicide was virtuous.” It was meant to restore your and your family’s honor after your honor diminished. Now, he claimed, suicide is like an escape. It’s selfish because it only benefits the individual. Instead, the individual’s family will suffer from the loss of a family member, and experience none of the social benefits that came with Japanese suicide (and other suicides of the past). 

• To clarify, Steven explained that some benefits the individual’s family would experience after one’s suicide would be the elevation of their social-economic position and avoidance of public reclusion. 

Katherine disagreed with Steven saying that he went too extreme for putting the blame

on the individual. Most current day suicides are never the individual’s fault, and we shouldn’t

dump the blame on them afterwards. It is always because of circumstances. What suicides

of the now teach us is our limits and where to draw the line.
William added on to Steven explaining how in fascism it was honorable to sacrifice your life

in the name of the emperor. He quoted a famous proverb in the Japanese military during WWII, which stated, “To die for the emperor is to live forever.” By dying so honorably, your name

will live on in a positive light, and who wouldn’t want to be remembered so fondly.

• Ms. Fusaro added on to William’s comment, citing a Korean poem that stated a similar message. The general gist of the poem stated, “I can die over and over, but if I die for my lord, I live forever.”

Billy changed the topic back to the suicide of the past, stating that it was easier on the families whenever someone committed suicide because they believed in the afterlife, but now the value of lives are so much more greater because more people recognize the value of life and how precious it is.
Andrew disagreed with Billy, saying that people of the past valued life just as much as we did, and suffered from a loss just as we would. Some people of today still believe in the afterlife, and while it’s easier for them to cope afterwards, that doesn’t mean they value life any less than anyone else. They still suffer and recognize the loss of their family member.
Then Dejon finally jumped into the conversation and started relating the discussion to the homework reading. He first explained how the fact that Antigone knew she was going to be killed could be considered to be suicide for she willingly chose to die. But then he related this to martyrs like Rosa Parks. He states, “When you sacrifice yourself for something you believe in, no matter if you die in the process, then that’s honorable. When someone is dying for a cause, it’s honorable.”
Finally, we concluded the discussion with the fact that what we decide is an honorable cause is subjective. If it aligns with the viewer’s morals, it’s honorable. If not, it’s dishonorable.

Fate vs. Free-Will

In the lessons we have learned from the Greeks, the more we try to avoid fate, the more we

play into it. 

The Fates, in Greek mythology, the Moirai—often known in English as

the Fates—were the white-robed incarnations of destiny. Their number became

fixed at three: Cloho (spinner), Lachesis (allotter) and Atropos (unturnable).

They controlled the metaphorical thread of life of every mortal from birth to death.

They were often depicted as weavers of a tapestry on a loom, with the tapestry

dictating the destinies of men.

We had a short classroom discussion about this slide.
We discussed how the Greeks had an interesting interpretation of fate.

We related it to a diagram as shown below:

What this diagram shows us is that no matter what path you take, either the simple from

Point A to Point B, or the struggle of the journey on the right, by the time point B was

weaved to occur, fate has a way of making it happen.

• “Death will always come back to bite you, no matter how hard you try to avoid it;

It’s weaves in your fate.”

• Something to keep in mind is that the two figures shown above are two different journeys which the same starting and ending points. Some things in life were predetermined, but the journey in between was up to the individual. At least the Greeks believed in some free will.

Afterwards, we discussed how our philosophy has now changed to no longer believe in fate; that we are the makers of our own destiny.

• To relate to a previous lesson, our new philosophy holds us accountable for our own actions. We can no longer say that I did something (aka commited a crime) for the fates saw me to. This allows for a justice system based around a legal code (law) with no divine intervention (secular).

Antigone - The First Rebel Feminist?

Antigone’s crime was defying the laws of her land to appease her morality,

Is this a crime? How would it play in our justice system (translating the circumstances into

a modern perspective, of course)?

How do you determine your perspectives on justice? Is there a formula for

deciding what is justified? If so, what is embodied in that formula?

Why is this still a problem?

How will you fix it as you go into the world?

Cornelia started off the discussion by connecting Antigone’s scenario to an

actual court case that occurred within the last century.

A poor man’s wife fell ill and he needed to buy a drug to make her better.
He goes to the store to buy the drug, but he finds he doesn’t have the money
to buy it. After asking the clerk for a loan and being rejected, he was with two options:

don’t do anything and let his wife die or steal the drug. He decides to steal the drug and

his wife gets better, but for saving his wife’s life, does he deserve imprisonment?

Billy responds to this scenario by saying that there are no set morals. For example, Billy

brings up that fact that anyone could then get away with stealing food by saying that they

find it moral to take food in order to keep themselves alive. In this scenario, most people

would find it immoral because it’s for a selfish reason, but then when we apply that same

morality to Robin Hood, it’s perfectly fine because he’s stealing from the corrupt rich in order

to feed the starving poor.

Kelly adds on to Billy by reinforcing that there’s “no general formula for morals. The

best way is to compromise and make a set of rules that everyone can agree on (aka the law).”
Shannon then agree with Kelly saying there’s no way to determine what everyone thinks is

moral or immoral. The law is our best way to compromise.

Allen relates our discussion to Antigone, saying that we have a bias going into this story. 

“We all love the underdog story”.

Fusaro then leads the discussion and visits back to Cornelia’s example, but now with

bread for his starving family.
First she asks how many of us would send the man to jail: 

Only Steven and another raises their hand.

But now what do we do if 30 or 40 families start stealing bread because they can’t afford it?

Now everyone starts to reconsider.

Dominick raises his hand and says, “At that point jail isn’t enough. I think it’s off to the gallows.”

Everyone has a nice chuckle.

William says, “Set an example, send one family to jail and discourage the rest."

Then… the bell rang, thus marking the end of another successful day in Gods, Monsters, and the Apocalypse.

But wait! Ms. Fusaro still had something to say. “Antigone was fine because she

had divine law backing her up. It was just a coincidence that divine law didn’t match up with

societal law.

AND...Done!

Student Reflection:

What did I learn?

I learned that there is never a clear cut answer to anything. On both debates we had today,

there was always a middle area that could never be completely answered. No one really

knew how to address it at first, but then, as we continued throwing ideas, we started to get

closer and closer to exposing that middle ground and finding ways to chart it. For instance,

in the first debate, while no one expected for a definite answer, Dejon suggested that “if

something aligns with the viewer’s/audience’s morals, therefore it’s honorable.” After that,

no one could really argue with him because it addressed both sides and settled down the

heat pretty effectively. Same with William’s comment about punishing the family to set an

example for other families in the second debate.

Why did I learn it?

It’s important to understand that there’s always two sides to a question, but more important

to know that there will be a solution that will always address both sides. You just have to

pour in the time and effort and have the right people to get there.

How will I use what I learned?

In the future we are bound to come across a topic that will seem to have no answer.

No matter how hard we think alone, we won’t be able to address it as effectively as with

an entire classroom. Public discussions, like these that we have in class, are what actually

give us answers. Maybe, we all might finally realize this and start asking for other people’s

opinions on the topics that stump us like this in the future. Then, we might stumble upon the

answers that we were looking for.