Greek tragedy has been performed, read, imitated and interpreted for twenty-five hundred years. From the very beginning it was thought to be philosophically significant-somehow pointing to the truth of human life as a whole (the phrase the "tragedy of life" first appears in Plato). As a literary form it is thought especially revealing philosophically by Aristotle, Hegel, Nietzsche and Heidegger to name only a few. Among others, Seneca, Corneille, Racine, Voltaire, Goethe, Shelley, O'Neill and Sartre wrote versions of Greek tragedies. And, of course, there is Freud. Greek tragedy examines the fundamental things in a fundamental way. Justice, family, guilt, law, autonomy, sexuality, political life, the divine-these are its issues. The lectures that follow treat three plays by each of the great Athenian tragedians-Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides-with a view to understanding how they deal with these issues and with the question of the importance and nature of tragedy itself.
Deeply appreciate Michael Davis' thoughtfulness. Still, I see a fundamental problem common to the philosophers/poets/ etc, in that they project their souls (and experience) upon everyone else. Thus Sophocles, Plato, Freud (not Shakespeare i think) universalize what is particular to them and most interlecterals; fundamentally, theirs are not my experience nor perspective. 34:00 Anger is a bit tricky. That's not the only cause. ... Also, I think there's a denial of the evidence. Some do indeed act unselfishly, but to act purely unselfishly is no easy thing. I think Plato's error is in seeing no good either in himself or others and not being able to see the good; as well assuming all men were like himself. This seems a common flaw among most great writers and philosophers. Lots of questions still remain. Thanks again for your thoughtful lecture.
The question of anger is always tricky, as we don't translate it as the ancients did (menis); its somewhat the remit of the gods, thus inherently inhumane (or the divine in the human). Its why Homer made it the centre of the Illiad (the anger of achilles). Unrelated, how does one see that which one hasn't projected one's soul into? Is perception not mediated by an apriori experience/set of values? I see it not as a problem common to the philosophers/poets/etc, but as a fundamental to the very scientific/philosophic/poetic interest to begin with. Note that all these categories did not apply at the time of the ancients. The anatomy of interest itself seems to be of a religious nature.
@@sss95547 yes. Anger is difficult; perhaps, nothing is more heroic than to restrain anger and not let it darken judgement. Achilles, Odysseus, Ajax, Eumaeus, Telemachus all fail.... perhaps alone Euricleia does not. Never to be angry is no answer; reasoning it away leads to worse, more myopic perspective; never let it cloud judgement. As to "perception mediated...", I agree. However, I disagree in that experience grows, understanding and wisdom, rare, but with time can arrive at right vantage and judgment become refined. And that, regardless of ages, times, cultures though with some limitations from our environs.
It's a lot of time dedicated to what is common among all men. Thus "Oh my God" even among unbelievers is uttered without thought in the midst of or with news of disaster.... But it's not necessary to attribute the ills to God as cause of all disaster, and indeed I would say men are the only cause of their own disaster and ruin, while it's true and common that most men blame God. If you read Sumerian literature, the gods are evil and the cause of evil; the Greeks hide it more. ... Still, I'm enjoying very much your lectures. Alone you address the concerns and puzzlements I have about this drama
Helpful lecture. Many in the comments threw this man under the bus. Typical post modern commentary. In a word worthless. I study the classics, ancient languages etc..these lectures gave me just enough information to peak my interest. I have read most of the plays now and am a fan for life. I am already reading them in Attic, albeit with difficulty. Contrary to what many have said, this mans lecture was helpful to me. My main go to is Jebb and Lloyd Jones, but this was helpful. Thank you!
The Browning Version brougt me here. My first impression after pitying all students of classics: For goodness' sake, why do ALL school/college syllabi, curricula, what have you rummage, foray, dig around in what this or that guy has written, and never have alumni create ANYTHING by themselves? The entire school curriculum and fee parasites aka college professors remind me of restaurant critics, ie guys who turned their inability to pay for a decent meal into a "profession".
You can tell this professor is very passionate about what he teaches and making sure it sits with their audience. I wish I had him in my campus, I'd listen to him all day.
i sincerely hope you post more lectures about, frankly, anything. to be sure, I have topics I think you'd be sublime upon. Shakespeare first and foremost. I would love to listen to you perspective on the Bard's tragedies, comedies, or histories.
Thank you for posting this lecture series. Along with ancient greek history taught by Donald Kagan available on the Yale open podcast series, you've opened my eyes to a new way of understanding drama. You've also breathed a breath of philosophia into me. I wish you had a Shakespeare series as well. I will bring the lessons you've taught here to Shakespeare and Neitzeche in the future.
I ONLY attend lectures in person (I would NEVER work on a degree online), but I just finished Aeschylus' The Persians and have started rereading the Oresteia for the first time since college, so I am giving this lecture the chance (although nothing replaces attending a lecture in class).
I appreciate the professors passion for the subject, but he is overcomplicating the play and he is effectively obfuscating the profundity of The Bacchae rather than articulating it. He is lost in the structure, projecting a frustrating amount of sophistication onto what is, in reality, a really simple story. Not only that, he does not even appear to know the meaning that Euripides is conveying with his choices. For example, he dwells on the 5 different forms Dionysus appears in the story, only to completely mischaracterize the significance-Bacchus takes different forms because he is a shapeshifter, he is the god who wears masks, the god who comes and goes, the god of the theater itself. It has nothing to do with Dionysus “not recognizing himself” *eye roll* nor does is relate to his “works”. There is no certainty that two of these works are even Bacchus’ own [the earthquake was most likely Zues work, and the account of maenids tapping milk from the hillside is likely a fantastical lie told by the messenger.] The profundity of the Bacchae is in the inevitability and ineluctability of Dionysus’ rule. It is in his power to enchant your mother, your wife, and your daughter, to compel them to engage in orgies and forsake their own children. It is about the powerlessness of Bacchus opponents and futility of resisting his will. It is also about the fact that the initiates into his cult do not even understand what they worship and why they are worshipping it. In this way, the professor is a bit closer to the mark, at least in spirit, as he does not understand what he is lecturing.
Thanks so much for an insightful series of lectures. These talks have inspired me to read and research more of these works as I've not reviewed them since undergrad. I am heading to Athens next week for a PhD residency and am better prepared for my trip and look forward to learning more about this area of study.
A lot of great series of lectures unfortunately have poor quality and no subtitles, such that valuable information is missed. This is not one of those. Wonderful job on the filming and editing.
This professor delivers very taro lectures about philosophy and classical Greek tragedy explaining very the meaning of human destiny. He’s my personal friend we talk via email he promised to let me know when he will be giving lecture in New York. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-vYTRbUA1TXc.htmlsi=t476xWko5AkAMKhm 😅
If this is his first lecture of the semester, imagine having to write a paper on Ancient Greek Philosophy and hope for a passing grade?! His tangential lecturing never ends. Oh yes, this only gets worse in the remaining lectures. Run away, before your demise is fully realized!
@@pablobarosa27 I’ve been tortured by him for a full year in the past. I’m not missing anything. And you are wrong. There are many other ways to develop critical thinking skills but this is absurdity at its finest. He is locked into an extremely narrow field of study that is completely impractical in the real world. Learning some Greek words is not worth being suckered into being forced into writing lengthy papers for him and expecting to impress him with your knowledge as a Freshman. (Of course I enjoyed passively listening to his lectures. It was perfect for learning how to jump from one distant connection to another.) Unfortunately there is nothing wrong for some people to twiddle their thumbs for a year. On the “other hand,” I was able to recover and reach my successful, unrelated career with a postdoctoral degree.
I would not discourage anyone from reading _Antigone_ but this lecture receives low marks. What an insulting lackluster analysis. Such a chaotic approach is ultimately offensive to one of the seminal early works for the entire Western tradition that followed. I am shell-shocked; there is such a large body of scholarship to draw from and Prof Davis stumbled horrifically... wow. I take no pleasure in this but a Professor did not show up at all and where he did show-up, he was ill-prepared from the very first questions that began the lecture concerning why it might have been culturally/religiously important to bury bodies in ancient Greece. Shocking. What's more the Athenians saw Thebes as the very anthesis to the order and resolution found in Athens; that probably would have been important to preface the analysis by as well. Unreal, that the students were not brought to even that awareness. Again, it is shocking that the Professor let some really fundamental grounding of any reading where the historical _Anitgone_ was performed go unmentioned, absolutely shocking. It is unreal that this lecture is even posted online. Sarah Lawerence College, this is mediocre at best. But what a mess yet I watched it nearly to the end hoping the Prof would rescue himself from the conceit. Nope. This was a total BS effort for any Professor. _Antigone_ deserves better.
you seem to be shockingly shock prone - perhaps some medication might help - as to prof Davis's analysis, well, apparently opinions vary for I have been loving it ever since I came across it.
Go ahead @@tomaszpilch7570 come all over Prof Davis every time you visit. The Prof indicates in the description, he didn't outline the lecture, someone else did. The reasoning you're looking for is _genetic fallacy_ I am last person to argue _Academic Freedom_ with. But _Antigone_ has one of largest bibliographies of scholarship and criticism behind it in the entire Western World. The pupil who prepared the lecture got hung-up in Heidegger's reading or something. It is a trash lecture. Professors enjoy the most liberty and sometimes it shows. Good luck to you.
42:25 I really like that idea. That she was testing him with walking on the tapestry to see if his motives were pure. She wanted to know if he sacrificed her daughter truly in reverence to the gods or because he was thirsty for glory. If he walks on the tapestry, which is described as heavenly, than he does not actually respect the gods and actually sacrificed her just to glut his thirst for glory. That blew my mind. You always find at least one gem in lectures like these. Philosophers always analyze literature way better than actual literature professors.
Life-changing experiences happened in my life without my brightest intentions, and certainly without any expectations. The list is long starting from how I immigrate it to United States, or even earlier how I bought a silly machine to make wood stretchers, but I didn’t know how to do it. A year later I made good money with two employees. I purchased my first real state at age 17, all by accident. Nearly every day I notice in my art studio fortunate accidents happen. I pick up the idea and develop it into a new technology. For instance, my “visible invisible”. Parts of the painting visible only with the flash of the camera. I’m getting a patent on it. Recently, I discovered by burning sued I can use it to create enigmatic images as independent elements within a painting, or completely independent visions drawings, with a little help of charcoal afterwards. Mendeleev discovered his/ours table of elements by playing cards. Archimedes shamelessly run around Syracuse naked screaming Erica. A few minutes earlier, he discovered one of the principles of physics. Artistic genius is unexplained. As a Russian poet Alexander Pushkin said it very nicely: .”- and genius is the workings of a paradox ( И гений парадоксов труд).” Bogoslowsky .🦁🤴
Of course, the story about Constantine, the Roman emperor killing his son, and converting to Christianity. Looking for absolution is apocryphal. #Constantine never converted to Christianity and never converted Roman empire to #Christianity. The project was taken by his grandson #Theodosius. And this is the truth #Bogoslowsky
