Philosophy in Macbeth

I realized doing my English assignment how easy it is to relate philosophy to almost anything if you just a little over analyze it. (=)

So I thought I'd share some philosophical issues the Shakespeare play "Macbeth" brings up - and I find interesting.

First of all, it could be called - A moral play, or a play with a moral. It is very clear that the play takes a stand on the actions of Macbeth and Lady Macbeth (LM from now on) - that they are wrong and even immoral. So it deals with issues of morality - one could look for the reason of their plan to be wrong. Is it because they broke the contract between citizens and a fair king by murdering Duncan?(contractarianism and legitimacy issue, political philosophy) or is it because murder is wrong as a deed?

But the play seems not to support the last stand. As we read in the end - Macbeth is killed and it is a great joy for the crowd.

Is it wrong because Macbeth expressed a desire to become something he is not? because he has let his will to power take over him?

This brings up another issue - the issue of identity. The question is - how much of this tragedy has happened because of Macbeth's ambition (personality)? and to what degree was it caused by the witches and LM that encouraged him and pushed him towards fulfilling his secret desire?

We can look at the issue from different philosophical perspectives.

the first is the deterministic one - Macbeth was conditioned to desire power and had an inner ambition to become the king of Scotland. The witches and LM were just triggering off something that would have happened no matter what.

The second perspective is the witches prophecy has actually changed Macbeth's mind. That he can change as a person and change the direction to which his life is going by taking action.

Another philosophy we could bring in to Macbeth is Nietzsche's. His idea of will to power the will to power is very much present in the characters of Macbeth and LM in the play.

Also - his notion of guilt. Nietzsche says that human beings have impulses they act upon, like beasts, and that one of those is violence. That humans enjoy violence. He also says that with the course of time the animal that is the human being has tamed itself. That we now suppress our impulses and turn them inwards. This combined with the guilt (unredeemable debt) we have to our ancestors leads to our own destruction.

This idea is very much present in the character of Lady Macbeth in the play. She does express a will to power, an impulse that Nietzsche claims we all have. But then the consequences of her deed and her violence make her feel extreme guilt which is turned towards herself. That finally destroys her - as she starts sleepwalking, hallucinating and finally she kills herself.

Hope this is not too far stretched :p

Just thought it's kinda cool how you can apply Philosophy to this kind of things. :)

Activism

A main argument in favor of democracy in John Stuart Mill's article is the kind of society it creates – an active one.

He claims that democracy, as the rule of the people is the best way of governing since it involves everyone. It does not include only a despot or a small group of influential people (aristocracy). In the other forms of rules the decisions are being made for and you sit passively in your house – not involved. In democracy, Mill says, people are forced to engage in their future and the future of their state and are ought to actively participate. This affects the behavior of the people – it not only that in voting they become active but rather they become active people (which is desired).

I am afraid I don't know how much of this is actually present in Modern democracy. I don't see leaving your house once every few years to vote as being active rather than passive. In what other way does democracy encourage activeness?

I can tell about my surroundings back home that I barely know anyone who is actually active in politics, including me. I grew in a society where instant media surrounds me – every round hour there's a news flash on the radio. We have the internet access 24 hours, the news channels on TV and a newspaper on our doorstep every morning. Yet it seems that many times they just pass by us… especially teenagers.

One reason for this I can think of is lack of political or activist education. This was never something that has managed to really catch my attention. We used to have a "news hour" every Friday in primary school and junior high but it somehow remained quite superficial.

On the other hand – you cannot make people interested in something they're not.

Why are we not interested?

This is exactly the problem with Mill's argument – I think many people feel they do not really have much say in their government's politics. It is a problem with representative democracy – it does involve a small group of people that decide for everyone else. Yes, once every 4 years we get to choose those people - but that doesn’t require much. Moreover, many times people feel the choice they have is between a douche and a tard sandwich. It is not a real choice and they personally really do not matter much in the future of the country because so much has and will be decided for them.

Take India for example – How can democracy make 1.3 people active? Would all of them been active it was complete chaos. But then again – how can 535 people represent this huge country?

I'm sure so many people are actually passive because in the biggest democracy in the world they don't count for much. A proof for that could be how political families have ruled the country, for example the Nehru family, for FOUR GENERATIONS, only Indira and J. Nehru together for more than 30 years! What kind of choice does this leave for the common people? (I hope what I mean comes across though I'm having some hard time to phrase it)

It seems to me that democracy can only help you reach activism in small and distinct groups. Otherwise – it might just lead to the opposite…

I close the shutters in hebrew

This is from a Hebrew children's song.

All the verses tell about different things the singer does in Hebrew. Daily things - I wake up in Hebrew, drink my coffee in Hebrew, count sheep in Hebrew and tell you good night in Hebrew,

but (!), he says, at night - when I dream - I dream in Spanish, my mother tongue.

I know we've been all over language and not only once and it is a common topic in muwci and among Philo students. But lately I've been experiencing again and again little things that make me think about language.

I feel so comfortable now in English - I don't have to think before I speak, it comes out naturally (almost all the time) and even when I speak to Israelis on campus I sometimes mix a word here and there in English (but not when I talk to people back home).

Yet in a way I really identify with what the children song says. It's is not that I literally dream at night in Hebrew - but I feel that the language has deep roots in me. That other languages may be communication tools and are great and interesting and wonderful to know - but Hebrew is something that relates to culture for me. English is a culture - but it is a muwci culture for me, a limited culture, a culture I adopted but I didn't grow up with. A culture of a global village and of internationalization.

I had so many ideas lately to do something for the next wada concert - and I've been trying to translate several songs in different occasions and even a skit - but I never seem to be able to translate the feeling. To translate it properly. (I even wanted to translate the Children song now - Dreaming in Spanish but found it loses its magic)

I don't think this prevents people from really getting to know me. I am who I am right and here (that relates to Hume's article we read last year, I think - that our mind is a theater and our identity the actors that keep changing. a bundle of perceptions)

I do feel I can express myself and get across to people. What I feel does not come across is not my identity but maybe more my culture, my background. It is something I would very much like to share with others - but find it hard without the Hebrew.

I'm sure people have a different "feel" in their language. They joke and maybe behave slightly different (or appear to behave) but since we live here for so long now and feel comfortable in English and our identity has been shaped in this place - I think we can truly get to know each other and the mother tongue is not a necessity for that.

But it is a necessity for me. for my interaction with myself and for my soul everywhere. In a Hebrew speaking community, an English speaking community or on your own - it does not have to involve anyone else but the strong feeling of affiliation I have with it. A personal thing.

This is the children's song, by the way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlKXixY9LYE