The play “Medea” opens up with Medea’s nurse that shows sympathy towards her. She wishes that the events happened differently. To summarize concisely, Jason abandons his wife, Medea and their children they had together. “My motive was the best: so we’d live well and not be poor,” lines 575-576). Jason goes off to marry the daughter of Creon who is the king of Corinth in order to gain more status and to live a better life. He believed that by marrying into royalty, he would strengthen the family and be blessed with fortune. “I wanted to raise sons in a style that fits my family background, (577-578). From that quote said by Jason, it shows that he is not content with what he had. I feel like he wanted more recognition to his self-worth by having some link to the royalty.

Something that really stuck to my mind was the idea that was introduced that gods might’ve been partially or fully responsible for the characters behavior. During the conversation between Medea and Jason, Jason says, “But I must say – at the risk of stirring up your envy and your grudges—Eros was the one who forced your hand: his arrows, which are inescapable, compelled you to rescue me, (540-544). From this quote, it seems that Jason is implying that a god was responsible for compelling Medea to do what she did which was to save him.

Jason abandons Medea and his children he had with her to marry into royalty for a better life. He believes by doing this, he is actually helping out his family live a better life and not in poverty and thus would be blessed.

What do you think of Jason’s resolution in solving his family’s financial problem and do you think that is the right approach? Do you think that was his true intention?

What other reasons would lead Jason to abandon them?

• Recognition?
• Fame?
• Power?

We are facing a few very complicated issues in Antigone’s plot. The second half of it gives us an intimate overlook through the characters own perspective over a few matters. The one that caught my eye especially was the way Haimon dealt with his wife’s verdict. He started from playing the loyal son, elegedly completely understanding and accepting the outcome (“I’m yours, father. I respect your wisdom..”, 706-7), and later on realized it’s wrong, or maybe spoke his real heart out (“father the gods instill reason in men.., 758), (“.. Though someone else’s perspective might help..”, 762).

The question of value when it comes to family is a recurring motive in ancient literature (as we remember form The Epic of Gilgamesh, where facing your family in the battlefield dilemma). Up to what extent are you willing to go when it comes to the closest dearest people to you? Even when some things need or have to be done. I find Haimon’s delimma beyond the ability to explain to the ordinary person. I believe that until you stand in his position, you can’t really understand his situation. Maybe not even then.

The simple fact that your own father, that is supposed to protect you, is taking away the thing you love the most from you, is shocking as it is. The second level of complexity here is that if you disagree with him (with the king basically), you are sending yourself to be doomed, weather directly or in the future. We saw that later on when Haimon is ‘losing it’ and decides to take his own life (and leads to Kreon’s wife to do the same). It’s very hard to judge him.

1. Given Kreon’s ignorance and failure to convince him, what would you recommend as a next step for Haimon?
2. What would you have done as the King, when your Daughter in law is betraying you as you see it?
3. Is a person that failed in a certain value or law still deserve a proper burial? What is the extent?
4. Is logic and reasoning really the major factors in this debate? Can you really disconnect your feelings when dealing with family members over serious matters?
5. What is the limit of going after your inner voice?

Very interesting. I’ll be happy to hear out your point of view.

Idan.

“Antigone” opens up by giving a background to the tragedy that is soon to unfold. Eteokles and Polyneikes are two brothers leading opposite sides in the Theban Civil War. The two brothers ultimately kill each other in battle. Kreon, who has just been appointed King of Thebes, declares that Eteokles body will receive the proper burial rituals and shall be honored for staying loyal to Thebes, while Polyneikes’ body shall be left unburied. Kreon, in reference to Polyneikes, says that “it is now a crime for Thebans to bury him or mourn him. Dogs and birds will savage and outrage his corpse – an ugly and a visible disgrace.” (lines 236-239). Antigone, sister to Polyneikes and Eteokles, is outraged by the kings decision to honor one brother and disgrace the other. She takes it upon herself to defy the kings law and give a proper burial to her brother, despite his betrayal to Thebes.

Antigone’s action of defying Kreons law could be seen as the right thing to do because in the end, the proper burial of a human is a law of the gods. Antigone says “I deny your edicts – since you, a mere man, imposed them – have the force to trample on the gods’ unwritten and infallible laws.” (lines 490-492). Aware of her fate, Antigone is staying loyal to the gods and honoring the dead as the gods would ultimately want.

In ancient Greece, the burial of a human was a huge part of their culture and would be a sign of respect to the person. The body would be cleaned and properly prepared for burial, and sealed with a golden coin which, as the Greeks believed, would be taken with them to the underworld so they could pay the ferryman of Hades who carries the souls of the newly dead across the river Stxy which divided the world of the living from the world of the dead. Those who were left unburied would be left to wander the shores for 100 years. With this context, you could see why the burial of Polyneikes was so important to Antigone.

1. Was Kreon’s declaration to leave Polyneikes’ body disgraced without burial and to become food for animals a sign of respect to Thebes, or was it a sign of him abusing his power and acting as a tyrannical ruler?
2. Being that Kreon was evidently disobeying the gods law, do you think that he viewed himself on the same level as the gods?

The Bhagavad-Gita is a poem that explores philosophical themes about morality and the duality of mind. The narrative takes place on a battle field where the great warrior Arjuna finds himself torn with the idea that he is about to wage war against family members and friends with whom he had grown up with in the same village. Arjuna is accompanied on his chariot by the physical incarnation of the god Krishna, and he asks Krishna why he feels so wrong about fighting his family; even though he is in the right. The lord assures Arjuna that it is in his right to take action, that it is only his mind that torments him and not the reality of the given situation.
Arjuna is mentally anguished with the idea of killing the people he loves, but all events in his life have led to that moment in time where action was necessary for the sake of his honor. Krishna indicates that the lack of action in a scenario where it is needed is considered evil. I agree that certain consequences follow even if you haven’t taken an opportunity when it was there for you. The dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna certainly explores the metaphysical ideas of the eastern part of the world. Krishna states “Gradually let him find rest, his intellect under control, his mind established in the self, not thinking about anything.” (p.1297 L.25) Krishna wants Arjuna to let go if his rational thinking, and to find the self or soul if you will. I feel that it is the intuitive part of the mind that Krishna is describing and so would many western philosophers whose ideas correlate with that same passage from the Bhagavad-Gita. The famous 19th century philosopher Hegel believed that mind recognizing itself as the ultimate reality would lead to absolute freedom. Krishna emphasizes that to Arjuna, to let events happen as they should, and that he should act according to the selfless mind.

1.) Given the time period and the lack of a Democratic government to enforce justice, would it be right to kill someone even if your in the right to do so?

2.) Ancient masters and sages have emphasized the dual split in the mind throughout the ages, in our time could it be more evident now then say 2400 years ago?

While reading Bhagavad-gita, there were many themes that stood out to me. One that particularly sparked my interest was the concept of selflessness. In the text, Krishna answers Arjuna’s question about the inner self and evil with a lesson on yoga ie. Meditation and self-control. He says, “Having abandoned all desires born to satisfy intentions, and having utterly restrained the many sense by the mind,” (1297) and “Constantly controlling himself, the yogi, freed from evil now, swiftly attains perpetual joy of contact here with Brahman.” (1297).

In other words, Krishna is claiming that in order to gain freedom from evil and attain good, one must engage in selflessness.

In my view, selflessness is an imbalanced way of life which leads one to avert from the human nature of having desires and needs. The way I see it, your body, family/friends, and the higher being all have rights over you. Worshipping the higher being should in balance with taking care of your body and being available for your loved ones. Evil is something that we are meant to be tested with and breaking free from it should be done all the time. Being selfless is almost like a cop out and quite selfish. Instead of being truly selfless by dispelling evil from society and from among one’s loved ones, it causes one to only remove evil from his/her life. By one’s good actions, they can actually bring people closer to the higher being ie. Good.

We see nuns and monks who give up their own physical and social needs to only focus on fulfilling the right of the higher being to be worshipped. But I believe that the higher being actually prefers balance. If you think about it, the world around us is all balanced. The earth is in balance with the stars and the planets; they haven’t ever collided with each other and never will and they’ve been out there for a very long time! The sun is just far enough from us so that we can benefit from it but far enough that we don’t get harmed by it.

I believe too much of anything is bad. We need to do everything in moderation in order to maintain peace and tranquility. Moderation keeps our lives, minds, and the world in balance.

What is the best way to dispel evil and attain good in your view – engaging in selflessness or maintaining balance in one’s life?

As I was reading Gilgamesh, there were some ideas and themes, both explicitly stated and implicitly hinted at, which I felt are relevant even today. Namely is the depiction of women, as infantile and impulsive.

The actions which take place in today’s section of the reading is brought about by a fateful conversation between Gilgamesh and the goddess of love Ishtar. Ishtar is attempting to seduce Gilgamesh. Yet not only does Gilgamesh rebuke her advances, he also chastises her for her treatment of her other objects of desire. After their conversation the goddess goes to her father Anu and to complain and demand that the bull of heaven be released to her so she can exact revenge on Gilgamesh.

What’s interesting in Ishtar’s description is the way in which she is depicted. She is impulsive and vengeful towards her objects of desire, especially Gilgamesh. Furthermore, she is depicted as manipulative. This is especially clear when we see her interacting with her father, at which point she adopts the manner of speaking of a child.

I found this interesting because it seems that even after a few millenniums certain character motifs seem to stick. The jilted, vengeful woman, seems to persist, from Ishtar to the rage experienced by Athena and Hera when Paris chooses Aphrodite as the most beautiful Goddess. And while I think it pretty obvious that this motif is a side effect of living in a society that’s historically been patriarchal, the consistency of these themes brings up another question.

Does the reoccurrence of certain literary tropes through time and in different places represent a universal human concern or is it rather a process of social reinforcement were we’ve been exposed to the same ideas so many times that it seems to be universal but is rather the product of certain peoples in a given time?

A significant portion in the beginning of the Epic is spent exalting Gilgamesh. He’s described as “two thirds…divine, one third …human” (Tablet I, line 50). I immediately thought of Thor the Demi-god, and wondered, why are so many heroes in stories gods or demigods? Perhaps it’s something about our humanity that leaves us wanting more, so we view it as a weakness and look to the perceived divine for strength. The writer wants to make sure we understand that he, Gilgamesh is like no other man. We are to admire him. The tone shifts abruptly when praise turns to criticism.  “Gilgamesh would leave no son to his father, Day and night he would rampage fiercely, Gilgamesh would leave no daughter to her mother” (Tablet I, lines 60- 61 and 65) were among the complaints. Maybe he isn’t that perfect after all? I’m conflicted, why would someone like him need to rampage? What does he have to prove?

Gilgamesh’s ego is his motivation for most of his actions. He doesn’t care who he hurts along the way, because if he can’t live forever in flesh, then he’ll be immortalized by his memories. It’s the same motivation behind the tombs in Egypt, the ruins of Stonehenge, and the clay soldiers entombed in Xian, China. This is what makes Gilgamesh relatable. Knowing life has an expiration date, is the most impactful aspect of our lives. He goes on to say “The gods dwell forever in the sun, People’s days are numbered, whatever they attempt is a puff of air” (Tablet II, lines 176-178). He is resentful of the gods’ immortality and understandably so. Why should someone who has lived like no other man die like one? No one wants to imagine the world going on without them.  Even though I found him selfish and egotistical, I was still able to pity and understand him.

He appeals to the most basic human need, the need for relationships with others. Gilgamesh says “I want a friend for my own counselor, for my own councilor do I want a friend” (Tablet I, lines 291, 292). The companionship he had longed for is realized when he becomes friends with Enkidu. He finds courage in his friendship. Whether romantic or platonic, relationships shape who we are and who we become. It is through this relationship with Enkidu, we get insight into the mind of Gilgamesh. In his own words he tells us what he hopes to accomplish by facing Humbaba. He tells Enkidu, “If I fall on the way, I’ll establish my name: ‘Gilgamesh, who joined battle with fierce Humbaba’. They’ll say” (Tablet I, lines 183,184). We sympathize with him because we all aspire to reach goals of self-actualization. It’s a common path. The plot where one wins a seemingly unwinnable fight to emerge a hero rings familiarity. We like familiar, it makes us comfortable. It’s that familiarity that makes the story of Gilgamesh transcend the boundaries of land and time. Even if we change the names and places, human nature is often the strongest subject in the stories we read.  We use our own experiences to understand the world and this makes the themes we discover subjective. Despite our backgrounds, we all have friendships we foster that give us strength, and battles to fight to make a name for ourselves. We all have our own Humbaba to defeat.

• How does your opinion of Gilgamesh change as you read the Epic 99-124? Do you maintain the same attitudes towards him from beginning to end? Is how you feel about him unique to each situation he is involved with?
• While reading Gilgamesh, I came across the very common theme of women being used as tools or as a means to an end, such as when the harlot was used to seduce Enkidu. This is reminiscent of the dynamic between Adam and Eve, as well as Samson and Delilah. Why do we think women are written about in this way?  Why is it that when a man gives into a woman’s charm, we are made to feel sorry for him, to pity him?  Why do we not consider the woman’s point of view in these situations?
• How does your own life experience affect how you interpret Gilgamesh?
• After reading Gilgamesh, does it make you consider your own mortality? Does it make you stop and think about what you have achieved in life so far and what you want to achieve in the future?

Welcome: I hope you find this a productive space in which to explore the texts we read. While each student is assigned a blog post and four responses, feel free to use this blog to post questions, links to relevant videos and information, and thoughts at any time; we can use these posts to generate discussion in the classroom.

If you have IT troubles or are new to WordPress, here’s the link to the Blogs@Baruch help forum: https://blogs.baruch.cuny.edu/groups/blogsbaruch-help/forum/. Here’s the link for the “Support for Students” page, which explains in more detail how these blogs work: https://blogs.baruch.cuny.edu/support/for-blog-authors/.

Just to clarify what you can find here vs. on Blackboard:

On the blog site: Details about assignments,  details about extra credit, and, of course, your own thoughtful blog posts!

On Blackboard: Photocopies/scans of readings that are not in the Norton (and readings for the first 2 weeks of class)