|
Prompt:
1. To what extent do you dis/agree with the author’s characterization of the distinction between comedy and tragedy? Articulate with a thorough example / How do you approach your life thorough comedic / tragic way?
2. Using the passage or others, analyze how the diagram can have comedic effects. Fill in the space of the diagram by composing your own lines or make your diagram of similar feature.
Answer:
According to the author, tragedy and comedy respectively elicit from people distinct responses to incongruities in life. The distinction between them, thus, can be elucidated by examining how each addresses affairs or dilemmas faced by humanity. Tragedy valorizes solemn and emotional engagement with life’s predicaments, putting precedence on such metaphysical values and patterns of thought as militarism or invariable loyalty to kings or queens. Comedy, in contrast, favors pragmatic thinking and down-to-earth solutions to life’s challenges, hence being considered as relevant to materialism or secularism. It is also noteworthy that comedy has similitudes to philosophy in some respects, which rectifies our common misconception that comedy is somewhat frivolous and not serious enough to discuss plights or miseries of life.
Overall, the author’s delineation of the two distinct concepts mostly sounds logical to me. However, part of it is inharmonious with my standpoints on them, especially his characterization of tragedy. To slightly point it out in the first place, tragedy cannot be seen to be void of practical solutions or ways of thought to incongruities in life. Moreover, life should be subject to both tragic and comedic approaches, and none of them cannot single-handedly shoulder sufferings in the reality adaquately. Therefore, it is crucial to strike the balance between the two ideas in life.
To begin with, the author’s description of tragedy in the given paragraphs can mainly be summarized as this: tragedy valorizes metaphysical values. For example, patriarchism, militarism, or immutable loyalty to kings or queens are all derived from metaphysical values, such as that men are superior to women, military power serves as a key constituent of a successful country, or kings and queens are more important than mundane people. The reason why these ideologies are metaphysical is that we cannot find in reality the evidence that supports the premises on which such ideologies are based. Biologically, men and women are different, but this does not mean that one surpasses the other in importance or ability, and the other should be excluded in governing a community or country. The same goes for militarism and loyalty to powerholders: there is no natural indication that military power should be prioritized in forming a prosperous country; kings or queens are not different from mundane citizens. Assigning importance to individuals other than communities can be seen a derivative of this logic; metaphysically, one may regard oneself more important than extraneous existences—this cannot also be proven by solely consulting to existential beings. It is, hence, almost impossible to find the bridges that link metaphysical values and tangible conditions in the real world.
On this basis, we can now proceed to discuss the relation between tragedy and pragmatism. Appearing to be detached from existential concerns, tragedy doesn’t necessarily preclude pragmatism in addressing life’s difficulties. Those thoughts or ideologies that tragedy favors also harbor practical approaches to life’s incongruities. For instance, in a battlefield, blind obedience can function as a determining factor of victory for it prompts soldiers to operate as commanded by their superiors swiftly. Struggling to achieve ideals also encourage people to cooperate collectively and cordially. Elitism can expedite the processes of administrative, legislative, or judiciary works in governing a country since fewer people participate in them—fewer participants mean fewer dissents.
The description of comedy that the author gives seems to be derived from, contrary to tragedy, materialistic or existential perspectives. It excludes such metaphysical factors in attending to predicaments in life as ideals, elitism, or patriarchism. Its value judgement is solely defined by a materialistic realm. To be more specific, kings and queens have no diffrenciating factors from ordinary people, except for the authorities they claim to be endowed by God. Trickery, getting an enemy drunk, or running away is allowed in handling conflicts because the tangible world doesn’t indicate or stipulate that mankind is not supposed to do so. Ethics, Morality, or other metaphysical ideas like elitism come with no existential bases, hence having no authority to dictate attitudes or behaviors of human beings. The famous Irish proverb—you’re only a coward for a moment, but you’re dead for the rest of your life—sums up the abstract notion of comedy adaquately in this respect. Thus, comedy can be deemed to emphasize such materialistic viewpoints as critical thinking, cleverness, or physical pleasures.
That comedy is based on existential reasoning seems to correspond to my understanding of it. Comedic approaches to difficulties in life comes from the effort to be free from conventional stigma, prejudice, and discrimination, which are predominantly derived from metaphysical value judgement. This is the reason why women, lower classes, and figures from various backgrounds are lead characters in comedy other than kings or princesses. Contrary to tragedy, everyone counts for one in comedy since in a materialistic view, every person is categorized as the same human race and has no such things that justifies conventional social classes.
Lastly, the approaches to life’s predicaments elicited by tragedy and comedy are often against typical patterns of thoughts that we expect the person involved to display. For instance, if I find someone robbed in dismal alley, tragic perspective will compell me to chase the robber at all costs, bringing the stolen items back to the owner’s hands. After completing the given task, it may seem that justice has been served, but the conseuqneces of my choice are evident: my body bears mild injuries from the chase, and my phone’s screen is cracked. Moreover, I have missed the train that I need to get on to arrive at the scheduled meeting in time. However, I will harbor no regret about my choice. Desite all the physical losses endured, the fact that I have walked along the path of such a metaphysical ideal as common good or righteousness elevates my moral status to a higher altitude. Consequently, the sense of elation is evoked from my being faithful to personal moral belief, leaving me great satisfaction only. On the contrary, comedic approaches leads to different types of responses to incongruities in life. For instance, if I invite my friends to a restaurant to celebrate my birthday and none of them shows up there, comedic perspective will console me for not spending money. As for the same situation, conventional, metaphysical value judgement will entice me to feel sorrowful because it favors having good relationships with others, quality interpersonal skills, or my position in a community. But comedic value judgement will focus solely on my material status, such as that whether the money in my pocket decreases. As a result, despite the heartbreaking fact that my birthday party is attended by no friends, the perception of not spending my money renders me unexpected solace, further granting me comedic satisfaction.
|
첫댓글 수고했다,,,승준,,,홧팅,,,