Vengeance

[Poetaster]

1. Firstly, if you want to end a discussion, the appropriate thing to do is stop continuing it; otherwise, you're just jockeying for the last word. I am, however, fine with ending the discussion.

This honestly isn't how I think. I'm only interested in truth, and couldn't care less about having 'the last word'. I was merely pointing out that a Miltonic fire is pointless setting.

2. As far as the cycle of violence; I am against it, as well. However, not all vengeance leads to a cycle of violence, and many other forms of justice do.

Then it seems from this we don't disagree.

3. Aeschylus being born before Aristotle does not, in any way, make the Oresteia any less of a tragedy

I never said it was - frankly, here is where I must ask you to reread my post. Aristotle has his formula for what he considered a good tragedy, but however skilfully he formulated it, it's still merely his opinion. It was not the universally accepted Athenian philosophy of composition that all writers followed, and I have no interest in molding Aeschylus onto Aristotle's ideas just to agree with him. Unless you can prove Aristotle was recording the Athenian philosophy of composition, and not his own ideas?

nor does it make the actions of its "heroes" any less tragic or misbegotten. So, their actions were a perfect example of tragically bad vengeance, not a substantial indictment against vengeance itself.

This is why we have The Eumenides. Without Athene stepping in to calm the Furies and organize the court, with the people of Athens acting as jury, the entire Oresteia is pointless. That, I dare say, is the point.

4. And you absolutely negated the legitimacy of all vengeance with your poorly-chosen nuclear war and Oresteia examples. They directly implied that vengeance is inherently damaging and will lead to the world's destruction. You can't negate legitimacy any more than that.

Violent vengeance. Legal vengeance has the power to do more than cause more blood shed and misery - which is why I was talking about cycles of violence.

5. Again, you misread my posts. I never said anything about all acts of vengeance by the Jewish people. So, your erroneously saying I did is an inaccurate, misleading strawman. I only addressed the specific righteous vengeance of Holocaust survivors who took satisfaction in the execution of the Nuremberg Nazis. So, what I correctly found reprehensible about your argument was your comparing that vengeance to the vengeance in the Oresteia and in Nuclear War. That was reprehensible.

If that's the case, you are finding a statement reprehensible despite the fact it was never made. This, too, is an example of a strawman. I've already said twice it isn't what I said, so if you want to continue taking offence then ... knock yourself out.

Also, since I was only talking about Holocaust survivors who took satisfaction in the execution of the Nuremberg Nazis, everything you said about Israel's later actions was irrelevant to my argument.

It is. But not irrelevant to what I was saying, which is more evidence than I need for thinking we are having two completely different conversations. For the record, I couldn't give a rat's *** if some holocaust survivors are taking personal pleasure in seeing justice done and war criminals hung. I'm happy for them in fact.

Finally, we agree we're not on "the same beat," so there is no point in our continuing our discussion.

Literally all I'm interested in now is if you can prove Aristotle wasn't just writing his own ideas.

[Pike Bishop]

This honestly isn't how I think. I'm only interested in truth, and couldn't care less about having 'the last word'. I was merely pointing out that a Miltonic fire is pointless setting.

I never said it was - frankly, here is where I must ask you to reread my post. Aristotle has his formula for what he considered a good tragedy, but however skilfully he formulated it, it's still merely his opinion. It was not the universally accepted Athenian philosophy of composition that all writers followed, and I have no interest in molding Aeschylus onto Aristotle's ideas just to agree with him. Unless you can prove Aristotle was recording the Athenian philosophy of composition, and not his own ideas?

This is why we have The Eumenides. Without Athene stepping in to calm the Furies and organize the court, with the people of Athens acting as jury, the entire Oresteia is pointless. That, I dare say, is the point.

Violent vengeance. Legal vengeance has the power to do more than cause more blood shed and misery - which is why I was talking about cycles of violence.
If that's the case, you are finding a statement reprehensible despite the fact it was never made. This, too, is an example of a strawman. I've already said twice it isn't what I said, so if you want to continue taking offence then ... knock yourself out.

It is. But not irrelevant to what I was saying, which is more evidence than I need for thinking we are having two completely different conversations. For the record, I couldn't give a rat's *** if some holocaust survivors are taking personal pleasure in seeing justice done and war criminals hung. I'm happy for them in fact.

Literally all I'm interested in now is if you can prove Aristotle wasn't just writing his own ideas.

1. You said "I suggest we stop things here," and yet you're still posting. So, that is jockeying for the last word. I have little doubt you will continue to do so.

2. You absolutely implied Aeschylus being born before Aristotle was a factor in the Oresteia being a tragedy or not. You said: "As well-thought out as they might be, it's unlikely everyone agreed with him. Especially Aeschylus, who died before Aristotle was born." So, you need to read your posts better as well. And whether or not Aeschylus agreed with Aristotle, the Oresteia does fit the consensual notion of tragedy, and the "heroes" actions do fit consensual notions of "tragic" and "misbegotten."

So, I don't have to prove Aristotle was recording his ideas or not; it's irrelevant. Since I showed that, you have to prove why it's relevant, and you haven't and can't.

3. Nothing in the Eumenides proves your point at all, particularly since you don't even say what that point is. And try to avoid saying "dare say'" it's very pretentious.

4. And your Oresteia and Nuclear War examples did negate and defame the vengeance of Holocaust Victims against their Nuremberg Nazi tormentor/murderers. Since that vengeance consisted of executions, it was violent vengeance you fallaciously countered with your examples. So, again you reprehensibly compare the two with your response above. And my saying so here, and in previous posts, is no strawman. It is the plain truth. And if you want to keep deluding yourself and dishonestly tell yourself you didn't make that comparison...knock yourself out.

5. It is callous, dismissive, and inappropriate to say you could give a "rat's ***" about the holocaust survivor's vengeance against those who tortured them and murdered their loved ones. Your saying so means you give the situation no more gravity than you would someone choosing a type of shampoo. Of course, considering the terrible comparisons you've made about those Holocaust survivors, I'm not surprised at all.

[Poetaster]

You absolutely implied Aeschylus being born before Aristotle was a factor in the Oresteia being a tragedy or not. You said: "As well-thought out as they might be, it's unlikely everyone agreed with him. Especially Aeschylus, who died before Aristotle was born." So, you need to read your posts better as well. And whether or not Aeschylus agreed with Aristotle, the Oresteia does fit the consensual notion of tragedy, and the "heroes" actions do fit consensual notions of "tragic" and "misbegotten."

That might have been how you read my post, but it isn't what it said. What it said was not everyone in Athens who was writing would have agreed with Aristotle. Aeschylus died before Aristotle was born, so unless Aristotle was recording the Athenian philosophy of poetics, applying Aristotle to Aeschylus and assuming that is how Aeschylus planned his writing is problematic at best. Your comments completely ignore The Eumenides, which is the most important part of the entire series.

So, I don't have to prove Aristotle was recording his ideas or not; it's irrelevant. Since I showed that, you have to prove why it's relevant, and you haven't and can't.

You suggested The Oresteia corresponds to Aristotle's theory of poetics, I'm disputing that because of The Eumenides. If you don't see the relevancy there then I don't know what to say. The Eumenedies isn't a perfect tragedy in Aristotelian terms, which suggests to me Aristotle's ideas were his own and any attempt to apply his ideas of the perfect tragedy to a series written before he was born is anachronistic.

You don't even need to read The Oresteia very closely to see all three plays need each other. So, now the relevancy should be clear - show the proof of your statement.

3. Nothing in the Eumenides proves your point at all, particularly since you don't even say what that point is. And try to avoid saying "dare say'" it's very pretentious.

Thanks for the tip, but it seemed appropriate considering the sentence it appears in. Also, my point is in what I'm writing.

[Pike Bishop]

1. It wasn't an issue of how I "read your post." It was an issue of what your quote actually said, and your quote said exactly what I claimed it did. Even your own explanation says it said what I said it did. So, thanks for the support. And, no, applying Aristotle to Aeschylus is not "problematic at best." That's ridiculous. Using your logic, nobody could make any valid criticism of any author's text who came before them. Please tell me what college English class taught you that fallacy.

And, as I noted in my previous posts, I'm not just applying Aristotle's Poetics to the Oresteia. I'm applying consensually held notions of "tragedy" and "tragic" behavior. And, since I was only addressing the vengeances of Clytemnestra, Elektra, and Orestes, I don't have to address the Eumenides. That's like saying, one has to address Henry V to judge Hal's nocturnal assault of Falstaff in Henry IV. Again, where are you learning these things?

2. I'm not surprised you "don't know what to say," because there is nothing you can say. We are not having a discussion on the Oresteia itself and all its texts. We are having a discussion on vengeance and the relevance of some of its characters particular vengeances in it....big difference. So, no, as I showed above with my Henry IV-V parallel, there is no need to discuss all relative texts to discuss the ethics of the one or more characters' actions in one text. Brilliant thinkers from Samuel Johnson to Karl Marx to Sigmund Freud to William James often make--as many of us do--successful references to actions or characters in texts without even referencing the text itself. So, your unfounded claim one must discuss all related texts to address characters and/or actions in one text is simply irrational.

[Poetaster]

1. It wasn't an issue of how I "read your post." It was an issue of what your quote actually said, and your quote said exactly what I claimed it did. Even your own explanation says it said what I said it did. So, thanks for the support. And, no, applying Aristotle to Aeschylus is not "problematic at best." That's ridiculous. Using your logic, nobody could make any valid criticism of any author's text who came before them. Please tell me what college English class taught you that fallacy.

And, as I noted in my previous posts, I'm not just applying Aristotle's Poetics to the Oresteia. I'm applying consensually held notions of "tragedy" and "tragic" behavior. And, since I was only addressing the vengeances of Clytemnestra, Elektra, and Orestes, I don't have to address the Eumenides. That's like saying, one has to address Henry V to judge Hal's nocturnal assault of Falstaff in Henry IV. Again, where are you learning these things?

Again: The Eumenides isn't a perfect Aristotelian tragedy, is it? You only need to study both to see that. Aristotle's identification is the accepted notion of what a tragedy is, but that makes The Eumenides problematic when applying Aristotelian ideas. If you don't know that, you've not read The Eumenides. Who is the 'hero' of the Eumenides? The only answer is Orestes, right? Like Choephori, then what's his fatal flaw in The Eumenides? he's already killed Clytemnestra - now he's running from the vengeance of the furies. It can't be that he thinks he can get away from the Furies, because he doesn't think that at all. He is getting help from Apollo, who is putting the furies to sleep - and despite Apollo's help the furies are still keeping up with Orestes.

2. I'm not surprised you don't have anything to say, because there is nothing you can say. We are not having a discussion on the Oresteia itself and all its texts. We are having a discussion on vengeance and the relevance of some of its characters particular vengeances in it....big difference. So, no, as I showed above with my Henry IV-V parallel, there is no need to discuss all relative texts to discuss the ethics of the one or more characters' actions in one text. Brilliant thinkers from Samuel Johnson to Karl Marx to Sigmund Freud to William James often make--as many of us do--successful references to actions or characters in texts without even referencing the text itself. So, your unfounded claim one must discuss all related texts to address characters and/or actions in one text is simply irrational.

I'm no longer talking about vengeance beyond The Oresteia now. I've said that, and otherwise explained myself sufficiently to leave it alone.

It's alright if you can't prove Aristotle wasn't recording Athenian philosophy of composition, by the way. I don't mind if you just say 'I can't'.

[Pike Bishop]

You are no longer talking about vengeance, and you're now prattling about the Eumenides in a way that has no relevance to my previous arguments. So, I assume we're done.

And nobody can prove what was going on in any writer's head when they were writing a text. So, your even asking such a question is ridiculous. And, as I showed above it was also entirely irrelevant to our discussion. You don't have to say anything--including "I know"--about that. That's just the cold, hard truth.


P.s. I'm still looking forward to hearing what English and Philosophy classes you have taken. They have clearly taught you some fascinating falsehoods.

[Poetaster]

You are no longer talking about vengeance, and you're now prattling about the Eumenides in a way that has no relevance to my previous arguments. So, I assume we're done.

You made a claim I disagree with, so I'm asking you about it. Also, 'prattling' is hardly polite - I feel I've been respectful to you, the least you can do is return the courtesy.

And nobody can prove what was going on in any writer's head when they were writing a text. So, your even asking such a question is ridiculous. And, as I showed above it was also entirely irrelevant to our discussion. You don't have to say anything--including "I know"--about that. That's just the cold, hard truth

.
Thank you. At least you admit it.

P.s. I'm still looking forward to hearing what English and Philosophy classes you have taken. They have clearly taught you some fascinating falsehoods.

All you need to know is that I've read both Aeschylus and Aristotle. I feel I let what I know speak for itself.

[Pike Bishop]

I apologize about "prattling." That wasn't what I was trying to say. I meant to say "rambling" because you were rambling on with irrelevant questions about the Eumenides. And I admitted nothing because I had never claimed to know what Aristotle was thinking, and my knowing so--and your silly question--was irrelevant.

And what you know hasn't spoken very well for itself in your erroneous arguments. And what I know is you have--and I say this respectfully--a notion of textual analysis and context that needs decided improvement. The fact you think only having read Aeschylus and Aristotle is enough to adequately discuss them and their connections is proof of that. The fallacious arguments you made today are as well. It is never too late to take an on-line philosophy and/or English/literary criticism course.

[Poetaster]

I apologize about "prattling." That wasn't what I was trying to say. I meant to say "rambling" because you were rambling on with irrelevant questions about the Eumenides. And I admitted nothing because I had never claimed to know what Aristotle was thinking, and my knowing so was irrelevant.

I don't understand. If you use Classical/Aristotelian ideas to assess the 'tragedy' aspects of a tragedy, and I point out a 'tragedy' doesn't conform to the ideas of tragedy, where is that not about what the guy, who literally wrote the book defining classical tragedy, thought? Besides, that isn't what I was asking. What I was asking you to prove was that Aristotle was recording the universally accepted Athenian philosophy of composing plays - so that we can know Aeschylus had those rules in his head before Aristotle wrote them.

And what you know hasn't spoken very well for itself in your erroneous arguments. And what I know is you have--and I say this respectfully--a notion of textual analysis and context needing decided improvement. The fact you think only having read Aeschylus and Aristiotle is enough is proof of that. The fallacious arguments you made today are as well. I truly suggest you take a literature and a philosophy course to help improve things. If you want a recommendation for an excellent on-line course, I would gladly give one.

I have said I have read Aeschylus and Aristotle. This does not mean I have only read Aeschylus and Aristotle. I'll give you two hints as to my academic background, if you really must: 'MA' and ''English' is the wrong term'.

I'll not dignify your assessment of my textual analysis skills with any more than pointing out, you didn't seem to think I've read more than just Aeschylus and Aristotle.

[Pike Bishop]

I don't understand. If you use Classical/Aristotelian ideas to assess the 'tragedy' aspects of a tragedy, and I point out a 'tragedy' doesn't conform to the ideas of tragedy, where is that not about what the guy, who literally wrote the book defining classical tragedy, thought? Besides, that isn't what I was asking. What I was asking you to prove was that Aristotle was recording the universally accepted Athenian philosophy of composing plays - so that we can know Aeschylus had those rules in his head before Aristotle wrote them.



I have said I have read Aeschylus and Aristotle. This does not mean I have only read Aeschylus and Aristotle. I'll give you two hints as to my academic background, if you really must: 'MA' and 'English' is the wrong term.

I'll not dignify your assessment of my textual analysis skills with any more than pointing out, you didn't seem to think I've read more than just Aeschylus and Aristotle.

1. Believe me, I completely get that you don't understand. I made specific references to specific acts in the Oresteia. I didn't make references to the entire trilogy. So, we were only discussing whether those acts were tragic, not the entire play, nor the entire trilogy. So, your rambling about The Eumenides was extraneous and irrelevant.

And you literally asked if I could 'prove Aristotle wasn't just writing his own ideas." Since the only way I could know that was to know what was in his head, your question was as ridiculous as it was irrelevant.

2. I didn't say you only read Aeschylus and Aristotle. Again, you do read my posts poorly. I correctly disputed your erroneous claim your reading those two alone was enough to adequately discuss them and their connections. It's not. You need a sound knowledge of phenomenology and literary criticism. The fact you asked your ridiculous question about Aristotle and actually thought it was relevant is proof of that. So, you don't need to "dignify" my assessment of your textual analysis skills. It is already dignified and accurate.

[Poetaster]

1. Believe me, I completely get that you don't understand. I made specific references to specific acts in the Oresteia. I didn't make references to the entire trilogy. So, we were only discussing whether those acts were tragic, not the entire play, nor the entire trilogy. So, your rambling about The Eumenides was extraneous and irrelevant.

No you haven't. I've reread this entire exchange and all you've mentioned are the 'vengeance' of Clytemnestra, Electra and Orestes. They aren't specific 'acts' of any parts of The Oresteia. Considering Ancient Greek plays did not work on acts, rarely even scenes, so all you could mention was the plays themselves as the 'acts'. In which case, how can my critical assessment be at fault when Aristotelian theory of tragedy can only be applied to 2 of the 3 plays?

And you literally asked if I could 'prove Aristotle wasn't just writing his own ideas." Since the only way I could know that was to know what was in his head, your question was as ridiculous as it was irrelevant.

Yes. And not the Athenian philosophy of poetical composition. You have admitted vicariously you can't, so no bother.

2. I didn't say you only read Aeschylus and Aristotle. Again, you do read my posts poorly. I correctly disputed your erroneous claim your reading those two alone was enough to adequately discuss them and their connections. It's not.

I made no such claim. I only said 'All you need to know is that I've read both Aeschylus and Aristotle. I feel I let what I know speak for itself' and 'I have said I have read Aeschylus and Aristotle. This does not mean I have only read Aeschylus and Aristotle. I'll give you two hints as to my academic background, if you really must: 'MA' and ''English' is the wrong term'.' I purposely made no mention of anything other than that, this also doesn't speak well of your own textual analysis I'm sorry to say.

You need a sound knowledge of phenomenology and literary criticism. The fact you asked your ridiculous question about Aristotle and actually thought it was relevant is proof of that. So, you don't need to "dignify" my assessment of your textual analysis skills. It is already dignified and accurate.

Then I'm glad you admit I at least seem to know what I am talking about. If so, how is my question about Aristotle's Poetics 'ridiculous'?

[cacian]

vengeance to understand it is a form of extremism that escalades into various escapades.
it is determined and not always obvious to an everyday mind
i consider capital punishment a form of vengeance.
it goes on under the said law and that is why others less prolific under a same title
ie an average person goes on implicating it on others under one form or another.
vengeance is a learned behaviour because it is highly stated in the book of law and religion
it is the study of also.
expect no better.

[Pike Bishop]

Poetaster,

1. Their acts of vengeance were their vengeance. I'm sorry you can't grasp that. I'm also sorry you don't know "act" has two meanings. That would be sad if it wasn't so funny...

2. Again, nobody can know what anyone--including Aristotle--was thinking. You asking whether I could and actually thinking the question was relevant just proves what I said about your knowledge. Again, thanks for your support.

3. You absolutely made such claim. You said "All you need to know is that I've read both Aeschylus and Aristotle" and "I feel I let what I know speak for itself.' Those statements absolutely assert your reading those two alone was enough to adequately discuss them and their connections. Just like I said you did. So my textual analysis was dead on. Your syllogistic reasoning, however, was not

4. Finally, you don't seem to know what you are talking about, and I never said you did. The fact you think my saying you need more knowledge and ask ridiculous questions said so shows you don't. And further proof of that is your asking me about your question. I've correctly shown why your question was ridiculous in my last post: "And you literally asked if I could 'prove Aristotle wasn't just writing his own ideas." Since the only way I could know that was to know what was in his head, your question was as ridiculous as it was irrelevant.

Again, try to read better. And I'm sorry you're not proud of your education and can't just admit what it is; apparently you have reason to hide it.

[Poetaster]

Poetaster,

1. Their acts of vengeance were their vengeance. I'm sorry you can't grasp that.

1) those are not 'specific acts' like I said, I'm seriously doubting you have even read The Oresteia, and 2) I do 'grasp' it - the thing is: that's not what I was asking. What I was asking about - have been all along - is The Eumenides and how it doesn't conform to Aristotelian ideas of tragedy.

You can't say you haven't noticed that.

3. You absolutely made such claim. You said "All you need to know is that I've read both Aeschylus and Aristotle" and "I feel I let what I know speak for itself.' Those statements absolutely assert your reading those two alone was enough to adequately discuss them and their connections. Just like I said you did. So my textual analysis was dead on.

No they don't assert that, they do not even suggest it. Don't be so silly. I'm sorry, but if you think so then your textual analysis does need work.

Edited to add: funnily enough though, just having those two texts is both all you are relying on too, and clearly more than enough to show you up, which is hilarious.

Here's a third, final hint (three being a major symbol in The Oresteia of course): I was being coy, because I consider my education part of my private life, and as such not any your business. I didn't ask you for your education, partly because I don't care - and also it's irreverent.

The fact you think my saying you need more knowledge and ask ridiculous questions "admits" that shows how poor your reading truly is.

You know that wasn't the reason I asked that question, you aren't a fool. I have to question your seriousness here.

And further proof of that is your asking me about your question. I've correctly shown why your question was ridiculous in my last post: "And you literally asked if I could 'prove Aristotle wasn't just writing his own ideas." Since the only way I could know that was to know what was in his head, your question was as ridiculous as it was irrelevant.

Again, try to read better. And I'm sorry you're not proud of your career and can't just admit what it is; you should have no reason to hide it.

The thought 'He must be asking were the ideas Aristotle wrote in Poetics displayed in any of his contemporaries' didn't cross your mind? You can't fool me.

[Pike Bishop]

I'm beginning to resent your English teacher. I said "acts" as in "acts of vengeance" and you went off on a rant about "acts" within plays. Some words have two meanings, Poe. I'm sorry that reality jars you so.

The rest of what you wrote is just rambling. I completely showed you said what I claimed you did twice. All you can do is spurt out fallacious and hollow ad hominems that aren't worth my time. And your final sentence with those odd green faces was just an incoherent run-on. So, this discussion is over, as are all discussions, between you and me. I have no time for your ridiculous questions, your repetitive "defenses" of them, or your non-sequturs

So, welcome to my ignore list and good luck with your "discussions."