Role of intellect in creating tragedies

[Natasha FM]

Have you ever wondered that in characters of Hamlet, Doctor Faustus and Oedipus their intellect becomes the reason for their tragedies. As three of them have high personal opinion of themselves.
Comment your opinions.

[Poetaster]

Intellect and having a high opinion of themselves are not really the same thing. And I don't think Oedipus's intellect is his flaw - it seems more to be his lack of knowledge of his own fate. And that's hardly even a flaw really.

[Natasha FM]

Intellect and having a high opinion of themselves are not really the same thing. And I don't think Oedipus's intellect is his flaw - it seems more to be his lack of knowledge of his own fate. And that's hardly even a flaw really.He is self-confident, intelligent, and strong willed. Ironically these are the very traits which bring about his tragic discovery. Oedipus gained the rule of Thebes by answering the riddle of the Sphinx.
Many of the most intelligent young men of Thebes had been killed attempting to answer the riddle but Oedi pus proved that his intelligence was superior. Oedipus uses the same intelligence and perseverance to find the killer of Laius. He does not give up his search even when Jocasta warns him to stop and let the matter rest. He calls the shepherd and interrogates him until he discovers the horrifying truth that he is the killer. Oedipus' intelligence was ultimately his downfall.. Also, if Oedipus had not been as courageous he would have never ventured to answer the riddle of the Sphinx. Thus, even though he had killed his father he would have never become king of Thebes and married his mother. In addition, if Oedipus had had the courage but not the intelligence, the Sphinx would have killed him for answering the riddle incorrectly. Sophocles used this to characterize Oedipus as a tragic man for he came about his tragic discovery not because of an evil act or an evil trait but because of his personality. Oedipus' traits which gave him riches and power ultimately led to his tragic ending.

[Poetaster]

He is self-confident, intelligent, and strong willed. Ironically these are the very traits which bring about his tragic discovery. Oedipus gained the rule of Thebes by answering the riddle of the Sphinx.

Many of the most intelligent young men of Thebes had been killed attempting to answer the riddle but Oedi pus proved that his intelligence was superior. Oedipus uses the same intelligence and perseverance to find the killer of Laius. He does not give up his search even when Jocasta warns him to stop and let the matter rest. He calls the shepherd and interrogates him until he discovers the horrifying truth that he is the killer. Oedipus' intelligence was ultimately his downfall.. Also, if Oedipus had not been as courageous he would have never ventured to answer the riddle of the Sphinx. Thus, even though he had killed his father he would have never become king of Thebes and married his mother. In addition, if Oedipus had had the courage but not the intelligence, the Sphinx would have killed him for answering the riddle incorrectly. Sophocles used this to characterize Oedipus as a tragic man for he came about his tragic discovery not because of an evil act or an evil trait but because of his personality. Oedipus' traits which gave him riches and power ultimately led to his tragic ending.

But is his intellect the reason for his downfall? All his life, and even before, it was fortold Oedipus would kill his father and marry his mother - and the Greeks did believe the will of the gods decided fate - that not everything was of our own making. So Oedipus uses his intelligence to keep the gears of fate in motion, but he was destined to do that because the gods made him to have that intelligence. So ... is his intelligence really his fault? Is his downfall his fault?

Oedipus's intelligence is also a point of irony in the play. He's the most wise and intelligent king Thebes has had in some time. Yet for this reason he is the most ignorant and the most unwise because he marches toward his own downfall without knowledge of his fate. Notice, also, how the riddle the Sphinx gives Oedipus to solve is the life of a normal man, but it's not quite the fate of Oedipus himself when he reaches Colonus.

[Clopin]

It's fated to happen but Oedipus has a flaw and it seems to be his temper/impulsiveness and not his intellect. Most people, I think, do not react to being told to move aside on a road by murdering everyone; and he displays it again with Tiresius.

Hamlet and Faust are better picks for your topic, at least for me, since I know little about Greek drama. Faust in particular actually blatantly explains to the reader how he feels that he has wasted his life on intellectual pursuits and, in Goethe's version at least, he doesn't require much more coaxing than he gives himself at the beginning; actually he seems to be in some sort of midlife crisis. When Mephistopheles advises him to pack it in and retire on a farm, work the plow and grow food if he wants to live a decent life Faust finds the suggestion distasteful and brushes it off saying it's "too late for that" (I think, haven't read it recently).

[Iain Sparrow]

Have you ever wondered that in characters of Hamlet, Doctor Faustus and Oedipus their intellect becomes the reason for their tragedies. As three of them have high personal opinion of themselves.
Comment your opinions.

I would only partially agree that Hamlet's downfall was due to intellect... I saw the betrayals of those closest to him, and the resulting loneliness and separation as the real tragedy, and why things unravel so horribly in the last scene of the play.

[Natasha FM]

But what if Oedipus after all this scenario listened to Jocasta and give up his curiosity in that matter may be then he would have been saved from this tragedy. And I think it is his intelligence that he got to know the reality like very soon.

[Natasha FM]

"Hamlet is a tragedy, the tragedy of a genius." John D. Wilson's line in 'What Happens in Hamlet' explores the real crux of Hamlet's tragedy. Intelligence is Hamlet's most admirable trait yet it also proves to be his most fatal flaw or hamartia. Hamlet's delay in action, a prime cause of his peripeteia, is due to this extreme intelligence. He questions whether the Ghost is a "spirit of health or a goblin damn'd" and the Ghost's motives when he exclaims whether they may be "wicked or charitable." - this delay strengthens the view among the audience that he is a weak man, who as Professor Dowden claims "has never formed a resolution or executed a deed", but some in the audience and indeed many critics trace the irresolution and procrastination as resulting from Hamlet's "capability and god-like reason." Even after Hamlet declares he will "take the ghost's word for a thousand pound", his intelligence returns to plant a seed of doubt concerning the manner in which he shall commit revenge. He questions whether his murder of the perfidious Claudius, while praying, will be a "hire and salary, not revenge" and the deed is delayed once more. "I have thoughts to put them in, imagination to give them shape" asserts the presence of Hamlet's rationality and reason. However, "imagination" implies that Hamlet's actions, even if indeed they are formed by reason, will always remain hypothetical. Hamlet's intelligence ostracises him from Elsinore's myopic members and heightens the sense of tragedy - form the very outset, Hamlet's "inky cloak" emphasises his solitude and isolation. Although Horatio is someone he has "much to tell" and a dear friend, he cannot aid Hamlet at times when his character is challenged and his solitude due to his intellectual superiority (Bradley claims Horatio is "intellectually not remarkable") creates a greater sense of tragedy and sympathy among the audience; Hamlet's tragedy is one of intelligence because his intrinsic intelligence is the ultimate cause of his downfall and it alienates him from Elsinore ; Hamlet cannot compromise and become part of the deceptive court of Elsinore because he possesses an inherent disgust for deception or deceit, driven by his superior intellect.

While everyone in the Court of Elsinore believed Hamlet to be mad, Hamlet's intention was always to adopt "an antic disposition" but this proves his supposed madness was born out of intelligence and presence of mind and this very madness has led to his downfall. Hamlet realises this in when he states "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" as he acknowledges his thought and reasoning may become his downfall. This quotation reveals Hamlet's self awareness and self-criticism and this illustrates his capability to philosophise generally and not subjectively, merely as an excuse to delay his action. His ability to see through Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's deception, "I will tell you why", and his disgust of Ophelia's lies, "Ha, ha! Are you honest?", and "contempt for everything pretentious" torment Hamlet and propel him deeper into the abyss of his mental instability; planned or not, his madness or intelligent guise, which paralyses him against action, consumes him and leads to his loss in "labyrinths of thought."

[Iain Sparrow]

"Hamlet is a tragedy, the tragedy of a genius." John D. Wilson's line in 'What Happens in Hamlet' explores the real crux of Hamlet's tragedy. Intelligence is Hamlet's most admirable trait yet it also proves to be his most fatal flaw or hamartia. Hamlet's delay in action, a prime cause of his peripeteia, is due to this extreme intelligence. He questions whether the Ghost is a "spirit of health or a goblin damn'd" and the Ghost's motives when he exclaims whether they may be "wicked or charitable." - this delay strengthens the view among the audience that he is a weak man, who as Professor Dowden claims "has never formed a resolution or executed a deed", but some in the audience and indeed many critics trace the irresolution and procrastination as resulting from Hamlet's "capability and god-like reason." Even after Hamlet declares he will "take the ghost's word for a thousand pound", his intelligence returns to plant a seed of doubt concerning the manner in which he shall commit revenge. He questions whether his murder of the perfidious Claudius, while praying, will be a "hire and salary, not revenge" and the deed is delayed once more. "I have thoughts to put them in, imagination to give them shape" asserts the presence of Hamlet's rationality and reason. However, "imagination" implies that Hamlet's actions, even if indeed they are formed by reason, will always remain hypothetical. Hamlet's intelligence ostracises him from Elsinore's myopic members and heightens the sense of tragedy - form the very outset, Hamlet's "inky cloak" emphasises his solitude and isolation. Although Horatio is someone he has "much to tell" and a dear friend, he cannot aid Hamlet at times when his character is challenged and his solitude due to his intellectual superiority (Bradley claims Horatio is "intellectually not remarkable") creates a greater sense of tragedy and sympathy among the audience; Hamlet's tragedy is one of intelligence because his intrinsic intelligence is the ultimate cause of his downfall and it alienates him from Elsinore ; Hamlet cannot compromise and become part of the deceptive court of Elsinore because he possesses an inherent disgust for deception or deceit, driven by his superior intellect.

While everyone in the Court of Elsinore believed Hamlet to be mad, Hamlet's intention was always to adopt "an antic disposition" but this proves his supposed madness was born out of intelligence and presence of mind and this very madness has led to his downfall. Hamlet realises this in when he states "There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so" as he acknowledges his thought and reasoning may become his downfall. This quotation reveals Hamlet's self awareness and self-criticism and this illustrates his capability to philosophise generally and not subjectively, merely as an excuse to delay his action. His ability to see through Rosencrantz and Guildenstern's deception, "I will tell you why", and his disgust of Ophelia's lies, "Ha, ha! Are you honest?", and "contempt for everything pretentious" torment Hamlet and propel him deeper into the abyss of his mental instability; planned or not, his madness or intelligent guise, which paralyses him against action, consumes him and leads to his loss in "labyrinths of thought."

My problem with these conclusions, is how can we count Hamlet's intellect as superior to those around him if after each soliloquy he's befuddled himself to the point of self-doubt and inaction?
"When intelligence fills up, it overflows a parody.”

[Giuliano]

It seems to me that you are mistaking the simple act of thinking over and over, to the point it causes inaction, for intelligence. Truth to be told, after a certain threshold it's all a matter of definition. What is intelligence? Can we really say it just amounts to obsessive over thinking, up to the point of madness? I doubt that.

The notion of "intelligence" as something compartmentalized and completely distinct from the other faculties of man, such as good will and humility, is relatively modern. By adopting a more "whole" view of intelligence, we may well say Hamlet was not so brilliant after all, he was just a man with a quite sharp mind who confided too much on his own faculties and ended up isolating himself and over thinking up to the point of madness. I'm not sure we can really call that "intelligence", at least, not if we consider all the meanings which we attribute to that word.

[Natasha FM]

It seems to me that you are mistaking the simple act of thinking over and over, to the point it causes inaction, for intelligence. Truth to be told, after a certain threshold it's all a matter of definition. What is intelligence? Can we really say it just amounts to obsessive over thinking, up to the point of madness? I doubt that.

The notion of "intelligence" as something compartmentalized and completely distinct from the other faculties of man, such as good will and humility, is relatively modern. By adopting a more "whole" view of intelligence, we may well say Hamlet was not so brilliant after all, he was just a man with a quite sharp mind who confided too much on his own faculties and ended up isolating himself and over thinking up to the point of madness. I'm not sure we can really call that "intelligence", at least, not if we consider all the meanings which we attribute to that word.

okay so all your comments says that it was destined and even as Giuliano said Hamlet has not really have any special sort of intelligence but from the beginning of the play, Hamlet seems to be intellectually superior to those around him. It is safe to say that IF he is pretending to be "mad," then his intellect is guiding his choices of how to be mad. He uses his "wit" to trick Ophelia by the way he acts when he comes into her chamber with his clothes awry, he tricks Polonius by talking to him about being a fishmonger (and his lines in this dialogue are very "pregnant" with meaning) and he observes the behavior of everyone to find out what is happening. He also takes in the behavior of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as he ferrets out the real reason why they have come to see him.

[Natasha FM]

And in the case of Dr. Faustus it is more clear that how his great knowledge lead him to the thirst of MORE and then ultimately to his downfall.

[Iain Sparrow]

okay so all your comments says that it was destined and even as Giuliano said Hamlet has not really have any special sort of intelligence but from the beginning of the play, Hamlet seems to be intellectually superior to those around him. It is safe to say that IF he is pretending to be "mad," then his intellect is guiding his choices of how to be mad. He uses his "wit" to trick Ophelia by the way he acts when he comes into her chamber with his clothes awry, he tricks Polonius by talking to him about being a fishmonger (and his lines in this dialogue are very "pregnant" with meaning) and he observes the behavior of everyone to find out what is happening. He also takes in the behavior of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern as he ferrets out the real reason why they have come to see him.

What I think you're doing is giving Hamlet far too much credit, which is inconsistent with his youth... in fact Hamlet's age is something of a mystery.
The problem comes about when we dissect his character without considering his age; he in fact must be either in his late teens, or perhaps early twenties. Intelligence, and the discipline to act logically and decisively does not marry well with youth and emotional inexperience. I think because we associate Hamlet with those actors we've seen portray him on stage and film, who are usually in their late 30s or 40s, and sometimes older... we assume him to be older and experienced.
Here is an interesting article on Hamlet's age...
http://princehamlet.com/chapter_1.html

[Natasha FM]

What I think you're doing is giving Hamlet far too much credit, which is inconsistent with his youth... in fact Hamlet's age is something of a mystery.
The problem comes about when we dissect his character without considering his age; he in fact must be either in his late teens, or perhaps early twenties. Intelligence, and the discipline to act logically and decisively does not marry well with youth and emotional inexperience. I think because we associate Hamlet with those actors we've seen portray him on stage and film, who are usually in their late 30s or 40s, and sometimes older... we assume him to be older and experienced.
Here is an interesting article on Hamlet's age...
http://princehamlet.com/chapter_1.html

Thanks for sharing this article, quite interesting.

[ennison]

NFM argues persuasively but I feel that there is too close a linkage being made between personality and intellect. The old chestnut about whether it is better to be a contented pig or a discontented philosopher is slightly relevant here. The reality is that many pigs are discontented and many philosophers quite happy. Some philosophers are quite dumb especially as regards practical living and the pig of course is a clever beast (Orwell knew that!) Hamlet has a dysfunctional personality. Oedipus was so intellectually keen that he cut himself. The question of fate you still need to look at Natasha but I enjoy your points.