SOPHOCLES – ANTIGONE
Antigone is a tragedy written by Sophocles in 442 BC. The story is based upon the conflict
whether Polyneices, brother of Eteocles, deserves to have the proper rituals for his death like his
brother or not. The two brothers got into a fight after they couldn't decide which one is to have full
power. This concluded in a war between two brothers, Polyneices attacking the city of Thebes and
Eteocles defending it. In the end they ended up killing each other in the fight.
The main issue in this tragedy is the conflict between Antigone, daughter of former king
Oedipus, and Creon, new king of Thebes, who throws Polyneices in the streets for his corpse to be
eaten by dogs. Creon also runs into a dissension with his own son and future husband of Antigone,
Haemon. In order to fully study the question of Polyneices to be buried properly or not, the
arguments of each charachter should be analyzed first.
Starting with Antigone,sister of Polyneices and Eteocles, yields presedence to the respect
for the gods. “But I know I'll please the ones I'm duty bound to please”( Page 4 ). Her claim is that
Polyneices needs to buried properly according to the rituals ordered by the gods. ( Page 2-3)
Her love for her brother and loyalty to gods come before the state laws passed by Creon.”Zeus did
not announce those laws to me and justice living with the gods below sent no such laws for men” (
Page 13 ). Contrary to the demand of Creon for obedience to the law, Antigone responds with the
idea that state law is not absolute, and that it can be broken in extreme cases, such as honoring the
gods, whose authority is much more superior than Creon's. She further believes that justice will be
revealed when she's gone by the gods.
On the other hand, Creon puts forward that Polyneices has claimed treachery against the
state by attacking the city along with its culture and native gods and that's why he doesn't deserve a
proper funeral, unlike his brother Eteocles. “For I will never respect an evil man with honors in
preference to a man who's acted well” ( Page 7 ) He also claims that King's rule must be the
ultimate power in the state and anyone who acts agains these laws shall be punished. “ A man who
thinks highly of a friend than of his country , well, he means nothing to me.” ( Page 6 ) Moreover,
Creon asserts , gods would also think that Polyneices doesn't deserve a ritual for his death, he
becomes angry when they tell him that the corpse is moved and cleaned by the gods. ( Page 9 )
In his conversations the reader gets the impression that Creon is a very conservative man and likes
to use his power as the king of Thebes. Thereby he also indicates that manhood comes prior to
women where he says to Haemon, his own son: “ Never let some woman beat us down” .
As for another important character in this argument comes the son of Creon; Haemon.
Haemon tries to talk into his father to listen to what the city's people say about Antigone burying
the body according to proper rituals. He claims that the king and people must have a reciprocal
relationship. The king must learn from his people and the people from their king. ( Page 19-20) He
also brings forward the idea that being young is not unworthy.” And if I'm young, don't think about
my age, look at what I do.” In conclusion Haemon thinks that Creon is being unjust by not listening
to his people and son in giving his decision.
All in all, the story ends tragically when Antigone, Haemon and Eurydice die and Creon
being regretful for his actions. Concerning its context, the tragedy Antigone might belong both to
the mythic world- view and logos-textured world-view. The conversations with Teirisas, the blind
prophet, and the blief that his prophecies will certainly come true, make this text a part of the
mythic world-view. But on the other hand, this tragedy also contains dialogues between AntigoneCreon and Haemon-Creon which make the readers think about the concept of justice in this manner.
All these three characters put forward their own perception of justice and the readers try to find
which action would be more just than the other,therefore this tragedy belongs mostly to the logos
textured world-view. Additionally it can be said that there is abstract principle of justice in Antigone
as Sophocles converts the text into a tragedy by the deaths of three characters and the vital part is
the moment that Creon gets to understand that he has made the wrong decision by not allowing
Polyneices to be buried in proper manner. These attributes of the tragedy Antigone makes it get
much attention in liberal arts and social sciences in general, although it stands as an archeic text.
The argument that is brought forward in this tragedy is still a topic of heated discussion in modern
world. An incident from my own country, Turkey, can be given as an example. Abdullah Öcalan,
the leader of the terrorist group PKK which killed over thirty thousand people in Turkey, was
caught in 1999 and prosecuted. Concerning the word meaning of justice, the just decision of the
court would be execution. But modern laws do not consider justice as death requires death. Modern
laws are composed by taking human rights and common culture of a nation into consideration.
Consequently Öcalan was sentenced to life-imprisonment. From my point on, Creon's mistake in
Antigone was to pass a law without listening to his people. Polyneices' actions may be counted as
treachery but Creon failed to think that gods' laws were greater than man's laws in ancient Greece.
CRITO
“Crito” is a dialogue written by the Greek philosopher Plato. The text consists of a
conversation between Socrates and his wealthy friend Crito. This dialogue is based on the
definitions of the terms justice-injustice and the convenient reaction that has to be given when faced
with injustice. Socrates' main message is that it is not true to respond to injustice with injustice.”What of doing evil in return for evil, which is the morality of the many-is that just or not?” ( Page 7)
According to Socrates there is only one truth and this can be explained by only one man who has
the sufficient knowledge to differ just from unjust. “ The one man who has understanding of just
and unjust, will say, and what the truth will say.” ( Page 6 ) Socrates claims that the opinion of
many may not bring justice, good men are the only people who are worth considering for. ( Page 3 )
In his own understanding of justice Socrates is even ready to face death. He counts any other action
as dishonorable. I, personally agree with the idea that injustice shall not be responded with injustice.
Additionaly, I think that there is one truth concerning justice. The concept of truth which leads to
true justice shall not be the words of the majority of a group. This one truth must be formed through
creating a common ground by discussion among certain people who have the quailities to determine
just and unjust. Yet it is hard to formulate such one truth in our modern times. Therefore, having one
truth may bring along disadvantages. If not based on a common ground, justice led by having only
one truth can lead to civil disobedience from certain groups who don't accept the inadequate one
truth concept. As an instance; the ongoing Turkish government has difficulties in setting a common
ground with the Kurdish minority. Consequently, according to Kurdish people,justice that was
formed before, by the majority of the Turkish people does not include the needs and thoughts of the
minority group. This leads to civil disobedience actions and doubts about whether the decisions the
courts have given were just or not.
LETTER FROM A BIRMINGHAM JAIL
Letter from a Birmhingham jail is an open letter written by Martin Luther King Junior from
his prison cell. He was arrested after being part in a planned non violent protest. His letter is a
response to white clergy men, who admit that injustices against black people exist but also claim
that these issues must be discussed on court instead of on the streets. In his letter, Martin Luther
King describes the concepts just and unjust by indicating that a just law is man made code that
overlaps with the moral law and the law of god. On the other hand an unjust law is defined by King
as a code that is out of relation with moral law.( Page 3 ) He adds to his thesis that any law that
elevates human personality is just. Followed by this definition, he explains further why segregation
and unequal treatment for black people are unjust. King underlines the fact that all types of
segregations and inequalities corrupt human personality, therefore they must be counted as unjust
laws and an individual with moral responsibility must have the courage to disobey these rules being
aware of the consequences. ( Page 4) In order to fight injustice, King borrows the non violent direct
action program from Gandhi. This action has four steps: collection of the facts to determine whether
injustices exist, negotiation, self purification and direct action.( Page 1 ) If all the first three steps
fail to achieve, non violent direct action becomes necessary. Eventhough King knows that direct
action will create an atmosphere of chaos he defends himself by expressing: “ I have earnestly
opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary
for growth.” ( Page 2 ) Furthermore, he makes a comparison with Socrates by indicating that
Socrates has created a tension in his own mind so that the individual can be freed from the half
truths, injustices and find the true, just, objective way. He plans to apply this tension in the society
to create a community unbound of prejudices and injustices. ( Page 2 )
These days, the non violent direct action program can be seen as a possibility to solve injustices
defended by laws in our country. The students protesting against the inequal standards during the
qualification exams can be counted as an example. The law that prohibits the entrance of the
persons younger than the age of 24 to a public event, in which alcohol is allowed, can be
interpreted as unjust as King states in his letter: “ A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority to
obey, but does not make binding on itself” ( Page 4 ). Non violent direct action is a method that
was successfully applied by Martin Luther King and Gandhi and probably also be used in the future
to abolish unjust laws passed by unjust governments.
DESCARTES- HUME
In his writings “Meditations”, Descartes tries to reach a certainity in his knowledge by
thinking about general daily events and find a clue that will lead to doubt his beliefs. He starts with
an argument about dreaming and indicates that he often has perceptions very much like the ones he
usually has in reality while he is dreaming, in addition to that he claims that there are no definite
signs to distinguish dream experience from waking experience.He concludes that it is therefore
possible that he is dreaming all the time and that all of his perceptions are wrong. But then he
refutes himself by expressing the fact that the images we form in dreams can only be composed of
pieces of real life experience ( Page 2, Meditation 1 ) He then puts forward the argument whether
god is deceiving or not. First he brings out the fact that there exists the belief that there is a God
who has created us and who is omnipotent. He also clarifies that there is a possibility that we are
deceived even in our mathematical knowledge of the basic structure of the world. On the other hand
he puts forward the contrary arguments by saying that we think that God is perfectly good and
would not deceive us and some people do not believe in an omnipotent God. He concludes his chain
of thoughts and ,claims that if it were not in God's nature to deceive us, he would not deceive us at
all and if we believe that there is no God, the creator of our existence must be less perfect and for
that we must doubt all we believe in (Page 3-4 ) . After his repeated inquisitions , Descartes finds
his first certainty, that is he has the knowledge of his existence only as a thinking thing. In general
the idea follows from any state of thinking. Even if a person is deceived, that proves he exists. The
individual can be certain from a single knowledge; he exists as a thinking being. ( Conclusion of
Meditation 2) After revealing the Cogito argument, Descartes takes several steps for the God's
existence argument. In Meditation 3, Descartes proves God's existence and that he is not a deceiver,
that leads to the conclusion that we are not deceived in our perceptions. He comes to this conclusion
by the following steps;he first summarizes the things that he is certain and doubtful of.
He is certain that he exists as a thinking being. He still doubts his senses concerning mathematical
knowledge since God may have created him to be deceived. Therefore, in order to become certain
of anything else, he questions the existence of God and see whether he is a deceiver or not. He
brings forward the ideas that he has an idea of a perfect God and this is more objective than any
thought of a finite substance and the idea of God is not derived in him because he is a finite matter.
As in conclusion, God must exist because the only possible reason for objective reality comes from
a person's idea of him. The argument about the existence of God plays an important role for
Descartes concerning the certainty of knowledge that can be derived by mind, as this argument is
one of the most frequently discussed issue in philosophical manner. If Descartes is able to prove
God's existence derived by his mind, he can speak of many more certainties of knowledge in life.
On the opposite side, the Scottish empiricist philosopher David Hume would object to the
deduction of God's existence derived by mind. To reach certainty, Hume uses two concepts;
impressions and ideas. According to Hume, impressions or sense experiences are more powerful
and vivid than ideas. The idea of the taste of an apple is much more vague than to the impression by
eating a real one. He claims that impressions are the source of all ideas. Sometimes, we may not be
able to have access to to the source of knowledge, namely impressions. But; according to Hume it is
possible for a person to have an idea about the uncertain knowledge by deriving combinations of
previous impressions.( Of the Origin of Ideas) Hume also brings forward two other concepts;
relation of ideas and matters of facts. These two terms differ from each other by the way they are
proven. Relation of ideas is proven by demonstration whereas matter of facts are proven through
experimenting or experience. But, about the matter of facts we can only have probable knowledge
because it is based on experience. An experience happening more regularly than another only uplifts
the chance for it to happen again but it is not yet certain, it is a prediction.
I would think personally as for my certain knowledge that the sun rises from the east and
sets in the west. Another certain knowledge might be, the multiplication of 2 with 2 results in 4.
My first knowledge would be a matter of fact, an experience that has been lived since centuries.
This knowledge would be yet probable. It is a very high probability that the sun will again rise from
the east and set in the west tomorrow but it is not certain. The second example I've given is a
relation of ideas. As when I multiply two with two, I can imagine that I put two times the same two
cubes packed together alongside each other and reach four cubes in total. This example is proven by
a demonstration and it is not certain because it is an idea that I created in my mind.
CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE AND JUSTICE
In my opinion there is not any relation to justice in a specific knowledge's being certain or
being open to doubt. Hume and Descartes may have found different methods in finding the certain
knowledge or questioning the existence of certain knowledge but; certain knowledge and justice do
not have a direct correlation. Justice is more an abstract but also important concept in our lives and
according to me, it must be discussed in terms of what Socrates and M.L. King bring forward.
Justice has direct relation to human personality and human well-being. By finding a common
ground in defining just and unjust actions, knowledge being certain or not would not really effect
the outcome. If the definitions of just and unjust are satisfying for all the people living in that
society, then there would be no reason to be more or less justice in that community even the
knowledge were to be probable. My truth or any other person's truth doesn't really matter. What
really matters is to be able to find a mutual truth in the society.