There are a couple of points that the man in yesterday's TED Talk that I would like to elaborate on. The first I can directly connect to tragedy, but the second is a little hazy, so I may spend some time just typing my thoughts on that point. Bear with me on that one, it may not make a whole lot of sense at first.
The first point had to do with intuition; the man said something along the lines of, "Intuition fools us again and again and there's nothing we can do about it." In terms of tragedy, I think this is a valid point, and the example I'm going to use, and will probably use often, is Hamlet. Hamlet goes with what he believed from the start, regardless of the fact that everyone thought he was crazy. His sanity aside, he stuck to his guns, so to say, and acted on his intuition. Although his intuition had been correct, the way he went about it was what fooled him, and I believe that the way he acted can be included in his intuition. He didn't have someone telling him how to react to all of this, he went with his intuition, which guided him in his reaction. A more applicable example is Oedipus; Oedipus' intuition told him that he should move away from Corinth in order to avoid killing his father and marrying his mother. His intuition was wrong, because his real parents lived in Thebes; his intuition fooled him, and continued to fool him. There were many hints that were presented to Oedipus about the real identity of his parents, but his intuition told him that there were no hints and that everyone providing the hints was wrong.
The second point mentioned by the man is basically this: some problems are so complex that we get confused and overwhelmed and we don't know what to do, so we just go with what has been chosen for us. Now, like I said before, I don't really know how this connects with tragedy yet, but I do know that it strikes a chord with me and I think it is significant. It may not have any connection to tragedy. I'm not sure yet. Anyway, I'm just going to talk through a few tragedies that I've read and see if this piece fits into the puzzle or if I end up having to force it in. So in Hamlet, I don't really think that he just goes with what is presented to him. Well, maybe he does. He is presented, whether in reality or not, with the ghost of his father, who tells him the truth about his uncle and mother, and Hamlet does in fact act on this. This problem definitely fits into the "complex" category, and I think Hamlet's rash and sometimes errant behavior describes the "confusion" and "overwhelm" that results from complex problems. He does go with the idea that the ghost presented to him after he thinks on it, so I guess you could say that in this situation, this idea presented by the TED Talk man applies. What about Oedipus? Well, he is presented with a complex problem, the truth about his family, but is there evidence of him being overwhelmed and confused? I suppose him stabbing his eyes out would be evidence enough; no person in their right mind would ever do that... I don't know that following through with what he promised necessarily means that he "just (went) with what was chosen for" him. Perhaps this idea doesn't apply to tragedy. It is fairly significant though I think, a good contemplation point.
So anyway, the tragedy of tragedy, ultimately, is that it cannot be avoided. Your intuition will betray you, you may get overwhelmed and not be able to think for yourself. Tragic things will happen, both in literature and in real life. I suppose the moral of the story is to accept that fact and try to deal with the consequences.
The first point had to do with intuition; the man said something along the lines of, "Intuition fools us again and again and there's nothing we can do about it." In terms of tragedy, I think this is a valid point, and the example I'm going to use, and will probably use often, is Hamlet. Hamlet goes with what he believed from the start, regardless of the fact that everyone thought he was crazy. His sanity aside, he stuck to his guns, so to say, and acted on his intuition. Although his intuition had been correct, the way he went about it was what fooled him, and I believe that the way he acted can be included in his intuition. He didn't have someone telling him how to react to all of this, he went with his intuition, which guided him in his reaction. A more applicable example is Oedipus; Oedipus' intuition told him that he should move away from Corinth in order to avoid killing his father and marrying his mother. His intuition was wrong, because his real parents lived in Thebes; his intuition fooled him, and continued to fool him. There were many hints that were presented to Oedipus about the real identity of his parents, but his intuition told him that there were no hints and that everyone providing the hints was wrong.
The second point mentioned by the man is basically this: some problems are so complex that we get confused and overwhelmed and we don't know what to do, so we just go with what has been chosen for us. Now, like I said before, I don't really know how this connects with tragedy yet, but I do know that it strikes a chord with me and I think it is significant. It may not have any connection to tragedy. I'm not sure yet. Anyway, I'm just going to talk through a few tragedies that I've read and see if this piece fits into the puzzle or if I end up having to force it in. So in Hamlet, I don't really think that he just goes with what is presented to him. Well, maybe he does. He is presented, whether in reality or not, with the ghost of his father, who tells him the truth about his uncle and mother, and Hamlet does in fact act on this. This problem definitely fits into the "complex" category, and I think Hamlet's rash and sometimes errant behavior describes the "confusion" and "overwhelm" that results from complex problems. He does go with the idea that the ghost presented to him after he thinks on it, so I guess you could say that in this situation, this idea presented by the TED Talk man applies. What about Oedipus? Well, he is presented with a complex problem, the truth about his family, but is there evidence of him being overwhelmed and confused? I suppose him stabbing his eyes out would be evidence enough; no person in their right mind would ever do that... I don't know that following through with what he promised necessarily means that he "just (went) with what was chosen for" him. Perhaps this idea doesn't apply to tragedy. It is fairly significant though I think, a good contemplation point.
So anyway, the tragedy of tragedy, ultimately, is that it cannot be avoided. Your intuition will betray you, you may get overwhelmed and not be able to think for yourself. Tragic things will happen, both in literature and in real life. I suppose the moral of the story is to accept that fact and try to deal with the consequences.