The Conflict, Climax and Resolution in Oedipus Rex Essays -- Oedipus t

The Conflict, Climax and Resolution in Oedipus Rex  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚        Ã‚  Ã‚   Sophocles’ tragic drama, Oedipus Rex, presents a main conflict and lesser conflicts and their resolution after a climax.    In Oedipus Tyrannus: Tragic Heroism and the Limits of Knowledge, Charles Segal had the protagonist fares well in the first series of tests, but does poorly in the second series:    The first three tests are, respectively, Oedipus’ meetings with Creon, Teiresias, and then Creon again. In each case he is pursuing the killer as someone whom he assumes is other than himself. . . . The second series begins with Jocasta and continues with the Corinthian messenger and Laius’ herdsman. Now Oedipus is pursuing the killer as possibly the same as himself. . . . In this set his goal shifts gradually from uncovering the murderer to discovering his own parents. The confidence and power that he demonstrated in the first series of encounters gradually erode into anger, loss of control, and fear (72).    With each of the six encounters the main conflict of the drama builds – an inner conflict within the protagonist which involves his own mastery or hubris – and humility or modesty before the the gods.Thomas Van Nortwick in The Meaning of a Masculine Life describes Oedipus’ tragic flaw:    As ruler, he is a father to Thebes and its citizens, and like a father he will take care of his â€Å"children.† We see already the supreme self-confidence and ease of command in Oedipus, who can address not only other people’s children as his own, but also be a father to men older than he is. But beyond even this there is, in the sretched posture of the citizens, the hint of prostration before a deity. We are â€Å"clinging to your altars,† says the prie... ...homas Woodard. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1966.    Ehrenberg, Victor. â€Å"Sophoclean Rulers: Oedipus.† In Twentieth Century Interpretations of Oedipus Rex, edited by Michael J. O’Brien. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1968.    Jevons, Frank B.   â€Å"In Sophoclean Tragedy, Humans Create Their Own Fate.† In Readings on Sophocles, edited by Don Nardo. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press, 1997.    Segal, Charles. Oedipus Tyrannus: Tragic Heroism and the Limits of Knowledge. New York: Twayne Publishers, 1993.    Sophocles. Oedipus Rex. Transl. by F. Storr. no pag. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/browse-mixed new?tag=public&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&part=0&id=SopOedi    Van Nortwick, Thomas.   Oedipus: The Meaning of a Masculine Life. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998.   

Dramatic Purpose Essay

Act 3 Scene 1 is the main turning point of the play. It is during this scene that the play becomes a tragedy. The scene begins with Benvolio asking that they all go inside because he fears a brawl. Benvolio states, â€Å"I pray thee, good Mercutio, let’s retire: The day is hot, the Capulets abroad, and, if we meet, we shall not scape a brawl. † Mercutio ignores him and is entertaining everyone by taunting and provoking Tybalt. Soon the happily married Romeo enters. Tybalt calls Romeo a villain â€Å"Romeo, the hate I bear thee can afford No better term than this, Thou art a villain† Tybalt calls Romeo a villain to coax him into duelling but also because he will have no regrets in slaying him. Tybalt becomes angry at Romeo â€Å"this shall not excuse the injuries that thou hast done me, therefore turn and draw. † Tybalt thinks that Romeo is mocking him but Romeo still refuses to fight. Romeo tries to be nice to Tybalt, â€Å"I do protest I never injured thee, but love thee better than thou canst devise. Romeo is so blinded by his love for Juliet that he does not want anyone to get hurt, especially a cousin he just gained through marriage to Juliet. Mercutio then decides to fight on Romeo’s behalf since Romeo has dishonoured himself. Mercutio calls Romeo a coward â€Å"O calm, dishonourable vile submission:† Mercutio says this because Romeo decided to stand down like the common coward. Mercutio then tries to coax Tyba lt into duelling him â€Å"[he draws] Tybalt, you rat catcher, will you walk? † Romeo tries to stop the fight between Tybalt and Mercutio by getting in between them. Romeo says to Mercutio, â€Å"Gentle Mercutio, put thy rapier up. † Even Benvolio tries to stop them. Benvolio being the peacekeeper did not want to watch Mercutio duel a Capulet of which there were many that hot afternoon. He was worried that on such a hot day the heat would cause tempers to rise easily. Benvolio tries to get the fight between Tybalt and Mercutio off the streets â€Å"We talk here in the public haunt of men: Either withdraw unto some private place, and reason coldly of your grievances, Or else depart; here all eyes gaze on us. † The fight ends when Mercutio is stabbed by Tybalt. Filled with rage for Mercutio’s death, Romeo fights and kills Tybalt. The citizens of Verona, including both families of Romeo and Juliet, rush to where Tybalt and Mercutio lay dead. The scene ends with the Prince banishing Romeo from Verona. Shakespeare builds the tension in this scene by showing us the aggressive sides of each of the characters. For example, Shakespeare makes Romeo try and befriend his enemy which enrages Tybalt. Tybalt then fights Mercutio in place of Romeo and eventually Mercutio is killed. Romeo enraged because of the death of his best friend, reacts by killing Tybalt. The audience now knows that this play can only end in tears for everyone. In my opinion I think that Act 3 Scene 1 is by far the best scene in Romeo and Juliet. It shows the reader many sides of the characters like Mercutio who is most of the time acting like a fool but heroically fights Tybalt for Romeo; Romeo who shows a loving nature towards Tybalt and Tybalt thinking Romeo is mocking him. The dramatic purpose of this scene is to act as the main turning point of the play. It is intense from the start and ends with the banishment of Romeo from Verona by the Prince and turns the love story into a tragedy. Casting: Role of Tybalt – Coty Simpson or Zak Efron Tybalt’s character is the same from the start of the play right up to and during Act 3 Scene 1. In the play we always see him as a fierce and fiery person. Tybalt is very aggressive, arrogant and has a bad temper. He is always looking for a fight but mostly fights with words not physically until Act 3. Benvolio descr ibes Tybalt to Lady Montague as â€Å"the fiery Tybalt, with his sword prepared†. In Act 3 we see how dangerous Tybalt truly can be when he challenges both Romeo and Mercutio. Mercutio also infers that any word with Tybalt could easily end with a physical fight. He states: â€Å"And but one word with one of us? Couple it with something, make it a word and a blow. † Tybalt’s character is also very insecure. Tybalt complains to his uncle and aunt that Romeo has crashed their party and finds this act offensive, insulting and hurts the family and his status. Tybalt states, â€Å"This shall not excuse the injuries that thou hast done to me. † Tybalt is also a bit of a coward as he runs away after killing Mercutio, possibly afraid of the consequences he will face when the Prince finds out. Even before he dies by Romeo’s attack, Tybalt still holds on to his powerful personality because he revels on how he got Romeo angry enough to fight proving he is stronger than Romeo who only acts on emotion not reason. To play the part of Tybalt, both Zac Efron and Cody Simpson can be cast. Both these actors attract a young audience. In the play, Shakespeare does not give Tybalt age, but his actions show him to be about 19-25 years old so both actors are the right age to convincingly play this part. However, Zac Efron previous casting experience will allow him to easily adapt to play the role of Tybalt. As Anakin Skywalker (Darth Vader) in â€Å"Robot Chicken; Star Wars Episode II†, Zac Efron played one of movie-history worst â€Å"bad guy†. Like Tybalt Darth Vader angers easily and is motivated by rational rage and not an irrational (passionate) rage. Also, Vader’s goal is to inspire hatred and fear to control everyone around him. One possible downside to Efron playing the part of Tybalt is the challenge of convincingly performing the scenes as written in Middle English. In conclusion I believe that Zac Efron will be a good actor in playing the role of Tybalt. Cody Simpson would be my second cast choice for Tybalt. Cody is Australian. His accent may be more convincing when performing in Tybalt’s role in Middle English. Also, Cody can be serious and focused. One key issues against Cody playing the part of Tybalt is he does not have a history of doing long films. Most of Cody’s performances have been short films and music videos. Of the two actors, Zac Efron would be the best Tybalt because he has play the role of the bad-guy and has a history of acting. Casting: Role of Mercutio – Taylor Lotner or Justin Bieber Mercutio’s character is humorous, joking and sarcastic teases throughout the play and up until his death in Act 3 Scene 1. He is incredibly smart, has a quick wit and clever mind. Mercutio is a driving force in the play. Along with being Romeo best friend he gives the audience important information that indicates the bad events that will happen. His death is the turning point in the play. Taylor Lautner and Justin Bieber are possible great actors to be cast in the role of Mercutio. Taylor Lautner is a person that has been in many films. He has played the role of a guy being chased by secret agents to acting as a wear-wolf. He can be a fun actor and become more of a serious person in the proper scenes just like Mercutio. Taylor Lautner is 21 years old and would be close to the age that Mercutio would be in the play. One disadvantage of having Taylor play the role of Mercutio is he may not be able to fully perform the role of Mercutio. On the other hand, Justin Bieber is known as being a goofy person. Like Mercutio, he has a great way of making everything he says be funny and makes others laugh. One major drawback to using Justin in this role is his lack of experience. Justin has only made one movie. Further, that movie was more of an auto-biography and not a dramatic play. Justin Bieber is also a bit too young to play this role. Ultimately, Taylor Lautner would make the best Mercutio. His personality and ability will allow him to mimic and perform the part of Mercutio that I have pictured in my movie. Casting: Role of Montague – Robert De Niro or John Travolta The two actors best suited to play the role of Montague are Robert De Niro and John Travolta. Robert De Niro physical features give him the â€Å"look† of Montague. He portrays the â€Å"look† of a smart and upright citizen like Montague is in Romeo and Juliet. Also, De Niro has played a similar character in his role as the father figure Pat Sr. n â€Å"Silver Linings Playbook† who is a bookie obsessed with the Philadelphia Eagles. Also, De Niro in the movie becomes a mean and cruel father. He has played a bad characters before. On the other hand, John Travolta though he has played some bad characters like his role in Pulp Fiction, his is mostly cast as a sweet and innocent person as we saw in many of his movies. Also, he do es not come across as a father-figure as well as De Niro and would not look authentic in the part of a stern and cruel character such as Montague. The best person, then, to play Montague is Robert De Niro.

God and the Philosopher Essay

Abstract Philosophers are known to be great thinkers.   The discipline itself is concerned with ethics, what things exist and their essential natures, knowledge, and logic.   Typically, when one is asked about his or her beliefs, the subject of God comes up. Whether or not God exist is the biggest and most ultimate question that people have ever asked. The topic of God is important to the philosopher.   He enjoys the contemplation of the subject. â€Å"Proofs of the existence of God† developed over the past 2,400 years by different philosophers. It is the foundation of most introductions to philosophy.   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   Does God exist?   The existence of God can be compared to space.   We know that space does not have an ending.   God â€Å"has no beginning and no end.   He is eternal† (Cameron, 465).   Some people don’t believe in anything that is not visible to the eye (Cameron, 471). The link to God for most philosophers is the world.   Thomas Aquinas, a theologian, â€Å"specialized in the philosophical analysis of the nature of God and God’s relation to the world† (McCarty, 196). He refers to Aristotle as â€Å"The Philosopher†; â€Å"Aquinas uses Aristotle’s emphasis on the importance of empirical evidence to offer the creation of the world as proof for the existence of God as its cause† (McCarty, 197).   He saw the creation of the world as proof for the existence of God.   â€Å"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.   Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters (Genesis 1:1-2).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   The Big Bang Theory tries to disprove the Genesis account of creation by stating that the universe was formed from an explosion.   Usually an explosion produces disorder and chaos, not trees, flowers, and animals (Cameron, 418).   Also, in order for an explosion to occur, there must be something present to explode and a means to cause the explosion.   â€Å"You cannot create something out of nothing† (Cameron, 419).   Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚  Ã‚   â€Å"Proofs of the existence of God† is a set of arguments that were developed over the past 2,400 years by different philosophers.   The purpose was to demonstrate that â€Å"there is, or exists, an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent creator of the universe who goes by the name of God† (Wolff, 364).   The first and â€Å"philosophically weakest† proof is the Argument from Design.   William Paley presented his argument in his book â€Å"Natural Theology†.   He noted that man-made objects were designed to serve a purpose by its maker.    We can compare this to the creations of nature, like the human eye or the brain.   They are sophisticated and cannot be duplicated.   The conclusion is only God must be the â€Å"all-powerful Maker† (Wolff, 366).   The second proof is the Cosmological Argument, which is offered by thirteenth-century Christian philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas.   His first argument is that some things move in the world.   Secondly, there must be a first movement to precede other movements.   A â€Å"first mover† must exist.   That â€Å"necessary being is God† (Wolff, 373). The final proof and â€Å"the most famous, the most mystifying, the most outrageous and irritating philosophical argument of all time† is the Ontological Argument (Wolff, 378).   Saint Anselm writes about this proof in his philosophical work the â€Å"Proslogion†.   The concept of the existence of God was based on the idea of the perfect being.   Nothing greater than God is inconceivable (Wolff, 370).   Some philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, have defended this proof over the past nine centuries.   On the other hand, it has also been rejected by other philosophers, such as St. Thomas Aquinas, and claimed as invalid because it cannot be proven. In addition to the Cosmological Argument, Aquinas argues his case using five proofs of his own (McCarty, 197).   The first proof is motion.   As with the Cosmological Argument, a â€Å"first mover† must exist to cause motion.   His second proof is causation.   â€Å"The natural world holds together through a tight chain of cause-and-effect relationships† (McCarty, 198).   For example, rain causes vegetation to grow.   The third proof is necessity/possibility. Aquinas argued that all events either have to be necessary or possible.   â€Å"A Necessary Being must exist that actualizes the possibility of the world as we know it† (McCarty, 199). The fourth proof is gradation. Some natural beings are more advanced than others.   Humans are at the top of the evolutionary chain.  Ã‚   â€Å"God has given him dominion (authority) over all the animals (Genesis 1:28) â€Å" (Cameron, 427).   This leads into the final proof of governance.   Humans are intellectually superior to animals and have priority over them (Cameron, 427). This is part of God’s Order (McCarty, 200). Most arguments for the existence of God start with some fact about the world and all of its components and activities (Morris, 243).   The topic of God is important because He is the backbone of any philosophical discussion. The Bible states that God is holy (Psalm 99:9).   Webster’s definition of holy is â€Å"sanctified†, which means to be free from sin. Ethics is a big part of philosophy. It embraces right conduct and good life.   â€Å"Ethical conduct is behavior that respects and nurtures truth, beauty, goodness, and unity, in our own lives, and in the lives of people we deal with day to day† (Morris, 111).   Good people struggle daily to resist temptations and pressures that they would not consider to be proper behavior.   â€Å"A good person is a person who shoots at the target of human happiness and flourishing for other people as well as himself† (Morris, 101).   On the other hand, there are people that don’t think about the consequences of their behavior. They act to satisfy their own selfish needs (Morris, 111). Philosophers view the concept of morality as a set of many rules (Morris, 112).   The Bible lists many of them.   Exodus 20 in the Old Testament lists The Ten Commandments.   The book of Leviticus contains many rules for work, worshipping God, and cleanliness. Another aspect of morality is The Golden Rule.   It states: â€Å"So in everything, do to others what you would have the do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets† (Matthew 7:12). In other words, treats others, as you would like to be treated.   â€Å"It captures the main attitude of an ethical person regarding the impact of his actions on others† (Morris, 114). In conclusion, the existence of God is a link for philosophers to the world. The topic of God is important when discussing ethics, morality, and nature to twentieth century philosophers as well as thirteenth-century ones. References Cameron, Kirk, & Comfort, Ray. (2004). The School of Biblical Evangelism.   Gainesville:   Bridge-Logos Publishers. International Bible Society. (1984). The Holy Bible.   Grand Rapids:   Zondervan Publishing House. McCarty, Marietta. (2006). Little Big Minds:   Sharing Philosophy With Kids.   New York:   The Penguin Group. Morris, Tom. (1999). Philosophy For Dummies.   New York:   Wiley Publishing Company. Wolff, Robert Paul. (2000).   About Philosophy (8th).  Ã‚   Upper Saddle River:   Prentice Hall.