introductory jabber; 5:50 lecture begins; 7:25 Background info; 8:30 Summary of play; 11:30 Creon's side of things and the universal suffering of the New Humanists; 15:20 Antigone's Dirge (Last Speech) and its three allusions; 27:20 critics don't see Antigone as political but perhaps she is using the only voice available: parody, mimicry, and citation; 33:20 modern claimants to the title of Antigone: Lyla Lipscomb and 40:45 Cindy Sheehan; 46:16 conclusion; 47:20 lecture is over
If seems like if you first adopt a position as a historicist, where you talk about what it means to be a women then vs now, you also have to historicize the pain, but then that undercuts some of the humanism aspects.
First let me point out that I live totally outside the academic world. That might prepare the reader for the further tone of my reaction Altough the points made in this lecture are all very interesting and intricate but no conclusions whatsoever are forthcoming. The author even more or less proclaims this to be undesirable. But what is the meaning of this all then? Is it just an excercise in being elaborate and full of deep thought? If that is all this exercise is one in narcism. Just like Bonny Honig deciding herself when she is ready to carry her prize. What posing! The empress crowns herself. Oh, that is a low remark, isn't it, but what about this? Much more important is that, just like Bonny Honig all the actors she pulls to the foreground, both the ancient and the present, have no real need or inclination to rationalize their mourning. They seek attention for their personal loss and mold their narative according to that. So is all mourning narcistic then? Not exclusively no. Far from it, actually. The real greek tragedy in all of us is that when we get hurt we try to rationalise our feelings to get back into control of them but always utterly fail. In reality we only tear ourselves apart looking for whom is to blame. And thus, as always, three women in a park with similar stakes do not get into contact with each other. They all only defend thier personal grieves. I think there is only one rational that might ever change the human condition (if ever indeed!). We'll have to accept that while taking all these individual stances, without any profound universal reasoning, we are only ritualising our own mortality. Maybe we can agree that the only true ratio for peace and stability is that anything else is just too wasteful. For more thoughts on that subject Google my name and go to the 30 Elements of Benign Materialism section on my webpage (said the other narcist).. Marc Brassé
![เป็นไปได้ไหม - WanMai [Teaser] | 05-12-24](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/P5Uto6e453w/mqdefault.jpg)
I’ve listened to this about 5 times now. Wow!
introductory jabber; 5:50 lecture begins; 7:25 Background info; 8:30 Summary of play; 11:30 Creon's side of things and the universal suffering of the New Humanists; 15:20 Antigone's Dirge (Last Speech) and its three allusions; 27:20 critics don't see Antigone as political but perhaps she is using the only voice available: parody, mimicry, and citation; 33:20 modern claimants to the title of Antigone: Lyla Lipscomb and 40:45 Cindy Sheehan; 46:16 conclusion; 47:20 lecture is over
This was great! Sure wish I could have heard the QUESTIONS!
What a fantastic lecture.
I want her script! THIS IS THE BEST TALK EVA
The actual play begins at 5:50
This was incredibly helpful, and interesting :)
BONNIE, Superb lecture..... do you have a transcript that i may study ?
11:05 tragic quality of the play
If seems like if you first adopt a position as a historicist, where you talk about what it means to be a women then vs now, you also have to historicize the pain, but then that undercuts some of the humanism aspects.
First let me point out that I live totally outside the academic world. That might prepare the reader for the further tone of my reaction
Altough the points made in this lecture are all very interesting and intricate but no conclusions whatsoever are forthcoming. The author even more or less proclaims this to be undesirable. But what is the meaning of this all then? Is it just an excercise in being elaborate and full of deep thought? If that is all this exercise is one in narcism. Just like Bonny Honig deciding herself when she is ready to carry her prize. What posing! The empress crowns herself.
Oh, that is a low remark, isn't it, but what about this? Much more important is that, just like Bonny Honig all the actors she pulls to the foreground, both the ancient and the present, have no real need or inclination to rationalize their mourning. They seek attention for their personal loss and mold their narative according to that.
So is all mourning narcistic then? Not exclusively no. Far from it, actually. The real greek tragedy in all of us is that when we get hurt we try to rationalise our feelings to get back into control of them but always utterly fail. In reality we only tear ourselves apart looking for whom is to blame. And thus, as always, three women in a park with similar stakes do not get into contact with each other. They all only defend thier personal grieves.
I think there is only one rational that might ever change the human condition (if ever indeed!). We'll have to accept that while taking all these individual stances, without any profound universal reasoning, we are only ritualising our own mortality.
Maybe we can agree that the only true ratio for peace and stability is that anything else is just too wasteful.
For more thoughts on that subject Google my name and go to the 30 Elements of Benign Materialism section on my webpage (said the other narcist)..
Marc Brassé
what translation is she using?
a bit annoying about the fact that, for them, its a big deal.
Bookmark 12:27