So I read Oedipus the King, Hamlet, and Volume 1 out of a 2 set series of Aristotle's writings. In Aristotle's work I read a good bit about the ethical state of humanity and how it is to be virtuous. First, Aristotle takes Plato's view of virtue ethics but spins it in a different direction. Plato believed that knowing the definition of a virtue can lead to someone being virtuous, whereas Aristotle believed a continuous use, as well as an understanding, leads to someone being virtuous. Aristotle came up with a measurement called the Golden Mean. This is a model that helps a person reason the proper way to utilize a specific virtue. Basically it is the idea of not too much and not too little.
So when it came to reading "Hamlet" and "Oedipus" I noticed a similar motif, due to the hubris of the characters, that involved Aristotle's virtue ethics. By not following the "Golden Mean" both characters lead themselves to their downfall. Anger is the motif in "Hamlet" where he expresses a vengeful ambition. This excessive anger consumes the character and brings about not only his downfall, but many others. Oedipus, in "Oedipus the King" shows a similar excess in the virtue of honor where he feels tied to the people of Thebes. Due to that tie and his inability to be dishonorable, he faces the horrible truth of his situation.
Here I wrote a Hubpage article that expands on these two views with examples from both plays:
fredarnold.hubpages.com/hub/For-Those-with-an-Immense-Hubris-an-Analysis-of-Oedipus-the-King-and-Hamlet
(I can't link due to me being new! Sorry!)
What do you guys think?
- Levity
Reply With Quote