Raising the floor: the difference between the pitiful and the tragic

hello, deckard-
it is a poignant statement, definitely...

i read somewhere that the bhopal gas leak was a disaster, but bureaucracy made it a tragedy. was there any pity in there i wonder?

i guess that is one way to look at it-like the tea pickers in assam, the way they are working to their death by the rich plantation owners...but is it the point of view of the plantation owners that they are only animals and we pity the workers because of that, that they have been reduced to animals? or is it that the owners are in fact animals, even more to be pitied, because they have no humanity whatsoever. i see more dignity in the worker dying of consumption than the rich man who has in my opinion failed even more with the life he was given.

and one could use the word tragedy for someone (like a few people i have known) who faced one disaster after another, and somehow managed to survive and not become bitter, not even complain, never compromise their principles, never even give up hope, yet nothing good ever happens to them or for them right up until they are buried. in that sense, a tragedy is the sort of beauty that makes me cry-the salute to the human spirit that even though it has failed in its struggles and endeavors it has triumphed above its destiny.

there is no beauty in the first story at all, is there...i mean not in bhopal or is assam.

hello, deckard-
it is a poignant statement, definitely...

i read somewhere that the bhopal gas leak was a disaster, but bureaucracy made it a tragedy. was there any pity in there i wonder?

i guess that is one way to look at it-like the tea pickers in assam, the way they are working to their death by the rich plantation owners...but is it the point of view of the plantation owners that they are only animals and we pity the workers because of that, that they have been reduced to animals? or is it that the owners are in fact animals, even more to be pitied, because they have no humanity whatsoever. i see more dignity in the worker dying of consumption than the rich man who has in my opinion failed even more with the life he was given.

and one could use the word tragedy for someone (like a few people i have known) who faced one disaster after another, and somehow managed to survive and not become bitter, not even complain, never compromise their principles, never even give up hope, yet nothing good ever happens to them or for them right up until they are buried. in that sense, a tragedy is the sort of beauty that makes me cry-the salute to the human spirit that even though it has failed in its struggles and endeavors it has triumphed above its destiny.

there is no beauty in the first story at all, is there...i mean not in bhopal or is assam.

Tragedy as a philosophical/aesthetic/ethical concept is incredibly rich.

As Hook points out, the difference between the pitiful and the tragic is the difference between the animal and the human. It is the difference between the human degraded to the level of the animal and the human who failed and yet still is truly recognized by society as a human. It is the difference between a pitiful life that is wasted (for examples) making shoes for Americans and Europeans or starving to death in one of the all-too-many-forgotten corners of the world and a tragic life of someone who tries but fails (and fails miserably) to do something admirable with the life that has been given to them. This is the difference between those who are oppressed and those who fail. The former is recognized as nothing more than a beast of burden or a cog in a machine while the later is a human who, though a failure, is nevertheless a recognized human.

. People need equality of wealth to make political equality possible... Where wealth is unequal democracy is impossible...

I think this is a great issue. I feel that tragedy is only possible when the being considered is grand, sacred, sublime, etc.

If we kill an ant, it's not a tragedy, as the ant can be considered as merely a cell in the species Ant, which is the "true" ant. But if we move up to humans, the individual differences become significant. One human is not like another. And even if we support legal equality of opportunity, it seems difficult to regard all humans as equally beautiful, significant, divine, etc.

Perhaps a victim is pitiful rather than tragic to the degree that they have no "spiritual" fingerprint. No hubris, no leap of faith, no transcendence.

It may be that we all have a certain amount of transcendence. And one can argue that merely being able to love is more important than all the courage, imagination, and ingenuity in the world. But one could also argue that such a inclusive view is nice but hypocritical. What is living religion if not the pursuit of "higher" things? Can we sincerely dodge hierarchy?

The idea that only some special soulful people are capable of experiencing tragedy I think is just rather stupid.

Do you think you need to preserve the pitiful in order to preserve the tragic? Is that what is at the root of your comment about hierarchy? That would be crazy.

In any case, I am more concerned with eliminating the pitiful than I am with preserving the tragic.

The idea that only some special soulful people are capable of experiencing tragedy I think is just rather stupid. Perhaps some peoples tragedies are more heroic and sublime than other peoples tragedies..sure you can have your hierarchy. I don't understand what you are getting at with the dodging hierarchy bit.

Do you think you need to preserve the pitiful in order to preserve the tragic? Is that what is at the root of your comment about hierarchy? That would be crazy.


In any case, I am more concerned with eliminating the pitiful than I am with preserving the tragic.

According to Aristotle, the essence of tragedy is fear combined with pity. Fear of its happening to us, and pity for the one to whom it is happening. The contemplation of tragedy institutes a catharsis.

Catharsis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What would a proletarian tragedy be like? What sort of plot would it have when compared to the bourgeois tragedy? or the Elizabethean? or the Greek? It's actually a very interesting question. I keep trying to devise a plot but I can't seem to bring this hypothetical genre into focus. I'm getting flashes of 1984 and the Grapes of Wrath or something in between the two.

I think there are two ways to approach the aesthetics of tragedy: as the audience or as the actor. Aristotle is in the audience. Nietzsche is on the stage.

"tragedy" is a tricky word. I think people, including myself, use it in a sloppy way. I think you put your finger on the difference between tragedy and pity when you brought up dignity. Yes I think that the world's poorer are not without dignity and often have more dignity than the world's richer. There are many ways to lose touch with ones humanity. Raising the floor means raising the floor for the pitiful suffering of the rich as well as pitiful suffering of the poor. I think Marxists generally agree that this is the case. The capitalist system undermines the dignity of the capitalist as well as the prole. Being on top doesn't make you dignified. Many of the richer live in a fantasy world and must constantly lie to themselves and their children to maintain that fantasy; that's no way for a human to live.

Agreed... The slave and slave master are both slaves...The capitalist and worker are both slaves, and together or alone neither has a chance of approaching freedom as an ideal...The progress of one impedes the common progress of both, because all the gains of the one are undermined by their very success at the ruin of the other... We all have to go into the future together, and everyone wants to get there first; and shut the door behind them...

I think there are two ways to approach the aesthetics of tragedy: as the audience or as the actor. Aristotle is in the audience. Nietzsche is on the stage.

Why? What difference does it make to the concept of tragedy whether you are a participant or a spectator? Do you think it makes a difference in comedy too?

The overthrow of the capitalist is also the liberation of the capitalist?

Why? What difference does it make to the concept of tragedy whether you are a participant or a spectator? Do you think it makes a difference in comedy too?

If we cannot shed this tendency to prey upon each other we are doomed...

The exploitation of the environment and of humanity are a set, and where one occurs the other is certain to be found... All we need to ask is: Does capital, the possession of it, and the general support of it by society result in a better individual... For every Bill Gates, what ever one can say about his business practices, if he may be said to be good for his philanthropy- spawns and encourages thousands who are simply out for themselves willing to cut any number of throats on earth for a ten percent profit... The richer the rich the poorer the poor and the more slavish and dependent become the poor who cannot rely on civil government or law to deliver them justice, so they need mercy...

I don't care if there is capitalism...I don't care if there is organized religion.. I think that if the people cannot demand that every generation begin fresh, and that wealth and political power be returned to the commonwealth and that even the structure of government be reformed as needed if needed, then again, we are doomed...

Hereditary wealth like hereditary political power does not result in a better government nor a better society... Where wealth is hereditary, so is poverty, so that whole classes grow up in it knowing of nothing else... Does the society have the right to demand that individuals and organizations serve a positive public purpose... Yes; and I do not believe that will stop anyone from being innovative, inventive or wanting to be rich... Rather than society pulling the cart for such people, they should be made to pull society's cart... Their energy ought to be used to improve the condition of all, and all honors should be given to them with the understanding that not a bit of it will go to their own children, but that their children with inherit a healthy society...

---------- Post added 05-09-2010 at 09:16 AM ----------


Tragedy is meant to be seen and not obscene...When people are a witness to tragedy, such as we have it in the original sense, we see people acting under a curse compounded by their own hubris which is a trait we share with them, and when they are struct down and face punishment we are to see ourselves in them, and through a simple indentification, sympathy, we are then made better, healthier, and more humane...

In the grossest sort of comedy, an evil one is presented to us in the worst possible light... We are made to hate that one, and made to witness his crimes, and when he is punished with a punishment richly deserved, and often presented from many angles, then we should have the feeling as with all comedy that we are united, justified, and purefied of evil... What is more likely, is that the witness of such tragedy -turned away from us, is handed the focus of his rage on a platter and finds he is left with his rage and removed from his focus...He knows it is not real, but his rage has been drawn out of the depths where it should be hidden, and into his consciousness where it cannot be expunged, purged, so he is left less than a man, less than human, with no one to turn his rage upon but himself...

It may seem strange that to present human suffering from the point of view of the punished should invite mercy, and so make people better, while to present the same suffering from the point of view of the injured society makes people worse... But it is a reminder that we are human, all connected, and that society often shares in the guilt of the damned, and that punishment is never just, and justice is fleeting and so should be tempered with mercy always...

We all suffer injustice at the hands of society... The certain knowledge of ones place, and of the whole situation is what is needed to make injustice endurable... As long as we can say: this one is evil, or that one is evil, and exclude them; we will never get to an understanding of our own contribution to their becoming evil, which may be significant... Injustice like justice is learned....

I find it interesting that you mentioned Bill Gates. I heard a radio interview with his father on npr and he seems to share some of your plilosophy but probably not all.

I had to click on the windows link at the site in order for me to hear it, and then my windows media player opened.:detective: Bill Gates Sr. on Estate Taxes : NPR