truth with a capital T?
"...for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so." -Hamlet Act 2. sc. 2
To continue class discussion...
-Charlotte
To continue class discussion...
-Charlotte
posted by L Lazarow | 1:48 PM
5 Comments:
Just to play a little devil's advocate:
I don't think that it is possible to have people that say that they believe their beliefs and say that they can accept that another has different beliefs. If one is true to their beliefs, wouldn't it be impossible to coexist with another who may be doing the complete opposite? Isn't that making you not true to your beliefs because you are allowing disrespect of them right next to you?
furthermore, not only are others constantly trying to challenge and change your views. your views are constantly changing. whether it be because of current events in the world, other opinions... it doesn't matter. what does matter is that an individual's views on what is good and bad is also changing. going with that... because everyone's individual definition is changing, there is even more proof that there will never be one set of standards for what is right/wrong, good/bad, etc.
I don't know if this is really important, but I kinda want to clear up something that's been bothering me in the way we've been discussing this.
You CANNOT believe in something passionately and strongly, and simultaneously "accept" someone else's completely contradictory belief.
What you can do is accept the fact that the other person has a different belief than you , but you can't simultaneously hold both beliefs. If I look at a dog and swear it's black, you can tell me it's white all you want. You can believe it's white, and I can accept that you believe it, but in my mind, that dog is still black. It simply can't be both. It can't be blackwhite. That's some Orwellian Newspeak, not real life. It doesn't work.
Sorry about that little rant, but I felt like I needed to say it.
Moral relativism. I like it. Call me a heretic, but I agree that a person's morals are the product of their environment, and that the idea of an absolute and universal system of morality is completely impossible.
Hamlet doesn't seem so sure in what he thinks, however. I find it very hypocritical (which seems characteristic of Hamlet) that he can say this while still condemning the murder of his father as "wrong" and "evil". He expects everyone else to understand this as well, as if it were a universal moral. But then he brings out this idea of moral relativism in an attempt to justify his own intended actions, murdering Claudius. To me, it just seems like another example of Hamlet being mixed up and overwhelmed by his thoughts, while still unsure of his actions.
Elisa, valid point.
I agree that Hamlet is extremelely hypocritical in his representations of both moral universality and relativism.
I think that Hamlet uses both of these in the scene in which he kills Polonious.
I'm assuming in the day it was common to kill spys. Hamlet, thinking this spy is Cladius, also felt that universally the act of killing him would be ok becuase the murder Cladius commited was "evil."
He feels no regret, though, when he finds that this is Polonious. This is perhaps an example of moral relativism, because all others seem to think that Hamlet is completely in the wrong, while he continuse on with life as though he did what he should have at the time.
(yes, maddness is also coming into play, but perhaps the moral issue is too?)
My problem with this quote's discussion is that i can see where everyone is coming from, and each argument makes sence to me. I will say that I agree more with Brendan in that if you strongly believe something, you can accept that other people have different beliefs, but you cannot accept those actual beliefs without compromising and changing your own... but i do feel that as a society we are trying to become more open to different ideas, and are being taught that just because something is different doesn't necessarily make it bad...
Post a Comment
<< Home