Is Antigone of a slave morality?

[obliterate]

I've just started geting into philosophy, and have started reading Nietzsche's 'Beyond Good and Evil.' I am intrigued by this notion of a master and slave moralities. I also had to read Sophocles' Antigone, for school, and am curious to whether Antigone could be considered of a slave morality and Creon of a master morality. I can't say have a full understanding of the notions of master and slave moralities, in fact only very limited, but I'll try to identify a few point on why I think so. Please correct me if I am wrong.

1. The morality of Antigone's decisions are based around the intention of doing her duty for her brother rather than the actual consequence. Even after she has buried Polynices, she is not sasiated and has a death wish.
2. The morality of her actions are only aceptable because of the tyrannical nature of Creon rule. Thus, her morality is dependant of that of Creon, who is of a master morality.
3. Creon is focused on the consequences of not allowing Polynices his burial rites. He will even kill his son's future wife to acheive his aims.
4. Creon is not concerned with the greater good, but simply protecting the strong-willed man's values and he is willing to use fear in order to acheive his aims.

What I have said concerning master and slave morality may be completely wrong and even if you haven't read Antigone, but know anything about Nietzsche's view of morality or any other broad moralistic view, please chime in. Any discussion will be valued.

 

[innonimatu]

I've just started geting into philosophy, and have started reading Nietzsche's 'Beyond Good and Evil.' I am intrigued by this notion of a master and slave moralities. I also had to read Sophocles' Antigone, for school, and am curious to whether Antigone could be considered of a slave morality and Creon of a master morality. I can't say have a full understanding of the notions of master and slave moralities, in fact only very limited, but I'll try to identify a few point on why I think so. Please correct me if I am wrong.

1. The morality of Antigone's decisions are based around the intention of doing her duty for her brother rather than the actual consequence. Even after she has buried Polynices, she is not sasiated and has a death wish.
2. The morality of her actions are only aceptable because of the tyrannical nature of Creon rule. Thus, her morality is dependant of that of Creon, who is of a master morality.
3. Creon is focused on the consequences of not allowing Polynices his burial rites. He will even kill his son's future wife to acheive his aims.
4. Creon is not concerned with the greater good, but simply protecting the strong-willed man's values and he is willing to use fear in order to acheive his aims.

What I have said concerning master and slave morality may be completely wrong and even if you haven't read Antigone, but know anything about Nietzsche's view of morality or any other broad moralistic view, please chime in. Any discussion will be valued.

Nietzsche was more than a bit mad. I really don't see why people take his writings seriously at all.

And in any case I thing that you are wrong. There is no "master morality vs. slave morality" in Antigone. The beauty of that and other ancient greek tragedies was in the unsolvable conflicts they described. Both sides had a "good argument", as far as the greeks saw it, that was what made it tragic - that one side in those unfortunate conflicts would necessarily lose nevertheless. Creon was concerned with the greater good, in the form of order and the rule of law in the city. It wasn't just his power, but the laws of the city which Antiogone challenged. And so was Antigone, for it wasn't merely religion but tradition which demanded that she bury her brother, and that too is part of order and law (customs). Both were caught in this contradiction of the law. The morality which bound each one was the same. Once they started their conflict (or, in a strictly tragic view, from the beginning), both were powerless to back off. If you want, both were "slaves" to the morality of their time.

 

[Lillefix]

Why not put this in the "ask a philosopher"-thread. It might become a bit more visible to people who can answer your question, unlike me.

 

[dwaxe]

I got in a debate about a similar topic with my English teacher (10th grade English FTW!)

She argued that Antigone was obeying a higher moral code, while I argued that she was conforming to traditional expectations and therefore a slave of tradition.

I argued that religious laws are not "higher moral codes", while she argued that for much of history, religion was a source of morality.

I conceded the point for the compromise that although she was obeying a higher moral code, it was a crappy moral code .

 

[Lone Wolf]

Both sides had a "good argument", as far as the greeks saw it, that was what made it tragic - that one side in those unfortunate conflicts would necessarily lose nevertheless.

The authorial sympathies seem to be on Antigone's side to me.

while I argued that she was conforming to traditional expectations and therefore a slave of tradition.

I wouldn't call her a "slave" - slavery implies mindlessness and lack of choice in the matter.

 

[Atlas14]

Nietzsche was more than a bit mad. I really don't see why people take his writings seriously at all.

Uhhh....how so?

 

[Naskra]

Antigone has no slavish morality in the sense Neitzsche uses the term. Antigone vs Cleon is just one master defying another. Had she tried to to persuade Cleon by highlighting the public relations benefits of proper burial, that would have been slavish.

 

[obliterate]

Nietzsche was more than a bit mad. I really don't see why people take his writings seriously at all.

And in any case I thing that you are wrong. There is no "master morality vs. slave morality" in Antigone. The beauty of that and other ancient greek tragedies was in the unsolvable conflicts they described. Both sides had a "good argument", as far as the greeks saw it, that was what made it tragic - that one side in those unfortunate conflicts would necessarily lose nevertheless. Creon was concerned with the greater good, in the form of order and the rule of law in the city. It wasn't just his power, but the laws of the city which Antiogone challenged. And so was Antigone, for it wasn't merely religion but tradition which demanded that she bury her brother, and that too is part of order and law (customs). Both were caught in this contradiction of the law. The morality which bound each one was the same. Once they started their conflict (or, in a strictly tragic view, from the beginning), both were powerless to back off. If you want, both were "slaves" to the morality of their time.

Antigone has no slavish morality in the sense Neitzsche uses the term. Antigone vs Cleon is just one master defying another. Had she tried to to persuade Cleon by highlighting the public relations benefits of proper burial, that would have been slavish.

Is there no way a credible argument could be mount merely comparing Antigone's actions to slave morality and Creon's to master? It doesn't have to be too specific, just mentioning similarities.

 

[Elrohir]

Why in the world are you trying to interpret an ancient Greek play through Nietzschean philosophy? Nietzsche is hardly the place to start for a beginning philosopher anyway, and I don't see any reason why you should be analazying Antigone through his philosophy, even if you're interested in his ideas.

 

[obliterate]

Why in the world are you trying to interpret an ancient Greek play through Nietzschean philosophy? Nietzsche is hardly the place to start for a beginning philosopher anyway, and I don't see any reason why you should be analazying Antigone through his philosophy, even if you're interested in his ideas.

English context writing. Exam tomorrow and it's only book I've even looked at. What book do you recommend for a beginning philosopher then?

 

[innonimatu]

Uhhh....how so?

That he ended his life isolated and pronounced insane is a fact. My view of Nietzsche has become increasingly negative over the past few years.

The negative aspects of his philosophy were nothing new. Anarchism and nihilism flourished in the 19th century, and far, better thoughters wrote coherent works (well, as coherent as you can get with these themes) before Nietzsche. Feuerbach first, about christianity, and Max Stirner later explored the theme quite well before Nietzsche had even been born! Too bad Stirner died young, I'd like to know what he'd come up with later.

And anarchism evolved positively, into a coherent and workable system, also before the mad ramblings of Nietzsche about some imaginary "superman". What were the positive aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy? Where others had rejected the established morality and build alternative systems, Nietzsche fell into the romantic delirium (also a 19th century strong current) and sought a solution to his own existential problems (and, I believe, his fear of death after rejecting religion) not by considering himself as part of society and thinking about society, but with a childish fantasy. To replace the condemned faith, he proposed not any action or programme but... blind faith in some "better man" who but awaited a "release" from the constraints of society. It ultimately cost him his sanity.

The authorial sympathies seem to be on Antigone's side to me.

I agree, but I'd argue that there is also sympathy for Creon. He too is a tragic figure, who believes himself forced by the circumstances to oppose Antigone even when he (the way I see it) doesn't want to. Against his personal best interests, against his family, he opposes her, just because he believes it the right thing to do. In the end, he pays the tragic price for his original mistake (forbidding the burial). Antigone is the wronged character, and her death is necessary to produce the tragedy. But Creon is the truly tragic figure in the play.

 

[Elrohir]

English context writing. Exam tomorrow and it's only book I've even looked at. What book do you recommend for a beginning philosopher then?

English context writing? Wasn't there anything closer together you could use?

I dunno. A general intro to philosophy book? Ask fifty in his philosophy thread, he might be able to suggest one. I recently began Bertrand Russel's a History of Western Philosophy, and it seems pretty good, although I don't know how hard to read it gets later on. If you can't find a general intro book, or take a class on it, you could always borrow that from the library and give it a go.

 

[obliterate]

English context writing? Wasn't there anything closer together you could use?

I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

I dunno. A general intro to philosophy book? Ask fifty in his philosophy thread, he might be able to suggest one. I recently began Bertrand Russel's a History of Western Philosophy, and it seems pretty good, although I don't know how hard to read it gets later on. If you can't find a general intro book, or take a class on it, you could always borrow that from the library and give it a go.

Alright, I look around, do a bit more research.

 

[Elrohir]

I don't know, that's why I'm asking.

Alright, I look around, do a bit more research.

You're placing Antigone in context, right? Try placing it in the context of Western literature, or Greek plays, or something.

 

[Bill3000]

 

[Gary Childress]

I've just started geting into philosophy, and have started reading Nietzsche's 'Beyond Good and Evil.' I am intrigued by this notion of a master and slave moralities. I also had to read Sophocles' Antigone, for school, and am curious to whether Antigone could be considered of a slave morality and Creon of a master morality. I can't say have a full understanding of the notions of master and slave moralities, in fact only very limited, but I'll try to identify a few point on why I think so. Please correct me if I am wrong.

1. The morality of Antigone's decisions are based around the intention of doing her duty for her brother rather than the actual consequence. Even after she has buried Polynices, she is not sasiated and has a death wish.
2. The morality of her actions are only aceptable because of the tyrannical nature of Creon rule. Thus, her morality is dependant of that of Creon, who is of a master morality.
3. Creon is focused on the consequences of not allowing Polynices his burial rites. He will even kill his son's future wife to acheive his aims.
4. Creon is not concerned with the greater good, but simply protecting the strong-willed man's values and he is willing to use fear in order to acheive his aims.

What I have said concerning master and slave morality may be completely wrong and even if you haven't read Antigone, but know anything about Nietzsche's view of morality or any other broad moralistic view, please chime in. Any discussion will be valued.

I think the main point of Antigone is supposed to be the tension between conflicting moral obligations. I don't see how it plays into Nietzsche's master/slave morality, though.

I took a seminar on Nietzsche and studied a bit of his thought afterwards and came away with the feeling that master/slave morality is more like Ancient virtue based morality vs. Christian morality. Basically on the one hand you have a morality that praises strength and health as virtues (the morality of the masters) and on the other you have a morality that praises meekness, humility and basically weakness (Christianity as Nietzsche saw it.) Slaves who are without power praise weakness as a virtue and the masters who have power praise strength and power as virtuous traits. I don't see where Antigone is a conflict between those two. If I'm not mistaken (it's been awhile since I read Antigone) in both cases Antigone and Creon are both trying to uphold duty and virtue. The tragic part of it is that the particular virtues featured in the play conflict with one another.

 

[Agent327]

Nietzsche was more than a bit mad. I really don't see why people take his writings seriously at all.

Nietzsche only grew mad at the end of his writing career, after which he obviously didn't publish anymore; so his madness bears no relation to his writings.

That he ended his life isolated and pronounced insane is a fact. My view of Nietzsche has become increasingly negative over the past few years.

The negative aspects of his philosophy were nothing new. Anarchism and nihilism flourished in the 19th century, and far, better thoughters wrote coherent works (well, as coherent as you can get with these themes) before Nietzsche. Feuerbach first, about christianity, and Max Stirner later explored the theme quite well before Nietzsche had even been born! Too bad Stirner died young, I'd like to know what he'd come up with later.

And anarchism evolved positively, into a coherent and workable system, also before the mad ramblings of Nietzsche about some imaginary "superman". What were the positive aspects of Nietzsche's philosophy? Where others had rejected the established morality and build alternative systems, Nietzsche fell into the romantic delirium (also a 19th century strong current) and sought a solution to his own existential problems (and, I believe, his fear of death after rejecting religion) not by considering himself as part of society and thinking about society, but with a childish fantasy. To replace the condemned faith, he proposed not any action or programme but... blind faith in some "better man" who but awaited a "release" from the constraints of society. It ultimately cost him his sanity.

This has a little more nuance but is still essentially incorrect: anarchism nor nihilism developed 'a coherent system'. Anarchism is basically not a 'system' at all, whereas nihilism basically just rejects established society sic; whereas the first found some foundation in anarcho-syndicalism (notably in Spain), the latter devolved into terrorism (for instance in czarist Russia). Nietzsche's view on the Übermensch is basically a view on how mankind should evolve. (I don't really see how this can be called 'romantic delirium' or ' a childish fantasy' unless you've never read Nietzsche first hand.) Whether this sprouted from any personal Angst about death seems to me not much more than speculation - and is rather beside the issue. At any rate, it is not this which drove him mad, but the sight of an Italian horse being sadistically flogged.

I think the main point of Antigone is supposed to be the tension between conflicting moral obligations. I don't see how it plays into Nietzsche's master/slave morality, though.

I took a seminar on Nietzsche and studied a bit of his thought afterwards and came away with the feeling that master/slave morality is more like Ancient virtue based morality vs. Christian morality. Basically on the one hand you have a morality that praises strength and health as virtues (the morality of the masters) and on the other you have a morality that praises meekness, humility and basically weakness (Christianity as Nietzsche saw it.)

This is essentially correct: Nietzsche, having studied philology, preferred the Greek value system to the Christian one, which he dubbed to be of a 'slave morality'. I'm unsure how this has any bearing on Antogone, however.

 

[innonimatu]

This has a little more nuance but is still essentially incorrect: anarchism nor nihilism developed 'a coherent system'. Anarchism is basically not a 'system' at all, whereas nihilism basically just rejects established society sic; whereas the first found some foundation in anarcho-syndicalism (notably in Spain), the latter devolved into terrorism (for instance in czarist Russia).

Ok, so you object to the word "system", fair enough. I still see coherence in the 19th century developments of anarchism and nihilism. But this is not a thread to discuss that.

Nietzsche's view on the Übermensch is basically a view on how mankind should evolve. (I don't really see how this can be called 'romantic delirium' or ' a childish fantasy' unless you've never read Nietzsche first hand.) Whether this sprouted from any personal Angst about death seems to me not much more than speculation - and is rather beside the issue. At any rate, it is not this which drove him mad, but the sight of an Italian horse being sadistically flogged.

Oh, but I did! Not all his books and not in german, but the translators are supposed to have made a good job. After "beyond good and evil" I gave up on him as a silly madman. I've seen a local subway madman spewing better philosophy than that. Nietzsche just keeps contradicting himself. He knew what he disliked, but (as usual with philosophers) couldn't offer a good alternative. He attacks morals, and proposes instead virtues which are no more than... morals! His ideal for the future man should have despised Nietzsche's philosophy it it took it seriously. Nietzsche's philosophy denies its own programme, and you can't say that it hadn't any, because in that case the author shouldn't have bothered to write those books. And the romanticism is there in his belief that someone would take his "message" seriously: somehow (magically?) his books would be hailed as a philosophy for the future. Instead they ended up providing jobs for second-rate philosophers commenting on them.
Anyway, I don't consider that madman's thoughts worth any more of my time.

And about madness: same people don't get mad just over seeing a horse being flogged. He was mad already. Poor Nietzsche became mad because no one took him seriously late in his life, and no one had slapped him hard either and told him to wake up whet it could still be done. I say he was alone looking at his abyss for too long.

 

[ParkCungHee]

...He went mad because the syphilis had spread to his brain.

 

[aelf]

1. The morality of Antigone's decisions are based around the intention of doing her duty for her brother rather than the actual consequence. Even after she has buried Polynices, she is not sasiated and has a death wish.
2. The morality of her actions are only aceptable because of the tyrannical nature of Creon rule. Thus, her morality is dependant of that of Creon, who is of a master morality.
3. Creon is focused on the consequences of not allowing Polynices his burial rites. He will even kill his son's future wife to acheive his aims.
4. Creon is not concerned with the greater good, but simply protecting the strong-willed man's values and he is willing to use fear in order to acheive his aims.

What I have said concerning master and slave morality may be completely wrong and even if you haven't read Antigone, but know anything about Nietzsche's view of morality or any other broad moralistic view, please chime in. Any discussion will be valued.

Wait, are you saying that deontological ethics is slave morality while consequentialist ethics is master morality? That would be nonsense. The two dichotomies are not parallel.

I'm also not sure that this...

The morality of her actions are only aceptable because of the tyrannical nature of Creon rule. Thus, her morality is dependant of that of Creon, who is of a master morality.

... makes sense.

And in any case I thing that you are wrong. There is no "master morality vs. slave morality" in Antigone. The beauty of that and other ancient greek tragedies was in the unsolvable conflicts they described. Both sides had a "good argument", as far as the greeks saw it, that was what made it tragic - that one side in those unfortunate conflicts would necessarily lose nevertheless. Creon was concerned with the greater good, in the form of order and the rule of law in the city. It wasn't just his power, but the laws of the city which Antiogone challenged. And so was Antigone, for it wasn't merely religion but tradition which demanded that she bury her brother, and that too is part of order and law (customs). Both were caught in this contradiction of the law. The morality which bound each one was the same. Once they started their conflict (or, in a strictly tragic view, from the beginning), both were powerless to back off. If you want, both were "slaves" to the morality of their time.

I agree with this too.

Hegel's stuff on tragedy is a lot more relevant to a reading of Antigone than Nietzsche's ideas on morality.

The authorial sympathies seem to be on Antigone's side to me.

That may be due to politics, since Creon was essentially a tyrant.

I took a seminar on Nietzsche and studied a bit of his thought afterwards and came away with the feeling that master/slave morality is more like Ancient virtue based morality vs. Christian morality. Basically on the one hand you have a morality that praises strength and health as virtues (the morality of the masters) and on the other you have a morality that praises meekness, humility and basically weakness (Christianity as Nietzsche saw it.) Slaves who are without power praise weakness as a virtue and the masters who have power praise strength and power as virtuous traits. I don't see where Antigone is a conflict between those two. If I'm not mistaken (it's been awhile since I read Antigone) in both cases Antigone and Creon are both trying to uphold duty and virtue. The tragic part of it is that the particular virtues featured in the play conflict with one another.

This sums it up well.