My big question has to do with guilt and the way people deal with it, more specifically self sacrifice, or letting go of something that is a part of us in order to achieve something else.
So my question is:
Is it our actual actions of self sacrifice that make us feel as though we are a better person, or is simply what one could say a "placebo affect," and we feel better about ourselves because we feel like now we've done something to punish ourselves for our own mistakes?Oedipus reacts to the truth about his mother by gouging out his eyes...an extreme, for sure, and it makes me wonder what does he gain by doing this? Is he better off blind and enlightened, or would be be better off enlightened but still able to see?
1 comment:
In "Henry IV Part I" Prince Hal makes a self sacrifice by giving up the life of deceit and theivery he has grown accustomed to in order to better himself to one hold the position of the throne. Since he is purging himself of that "evil," he appears to become a better person. Falstaff presents the opposite side of the argument, saying that if he purges himself of the luxuries of stealing, women, and alcohol, he will be growing less as a person. In Falstaff's eyes, his life is as it should be, despite the fact that he has made mistakes. He argues that by changing his ways he will not be living the way he has every right to live, therefore he will NOT become a better person.
This all ties into my big question in that it arises the dispute as to whether or not Hal really has changed for the better, or if his way of changing will perhaps hurt everything except the image he has of himself. Will it make him truly a better leader? Or would the better leader be the man who was a thief, yet was true to himself and listened to his heart?
Post a Comment