To what extent is this accurate in shakespear's play "Macbeth".
2007-05-03 10:53:34 · 9 answers · asked by sin90PRINCE 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
We can take any and all preventative measures to retard the evil, but we're only human; we have emotions, thoughts, and beliefs.
2007-05-10 21:57:20 · answer #1 · answered by Shae C 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
As regards the first question, the answer is, ' to some extent'.
Here you speak of the human experience and endeavors.
We had as easily put this term 'evil' into non-human terms, then the picture becomes clearer to the observer, for all that evil is in non-human terms, is its opposite -- that is, what evil is not.
For evil only denotes an imbalance in either side of the scale of life, and not a commentary on the dynamics of the scale itself.
2007-05-10 13:56:36 · answer #2 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First off: who said evil succeeded? I like a little nuance, and those are big words. Who said one thing is evil, and another is not? (apart from the church... and even then, they're not always clear cut on the decisions)
I'd also like to stop on the word "accurate". I've always associated it with a quantifiable measurement. I don't think it's possible to measure evil, and I think decades of disheveled schools of psychology show us personality is not so easy to quantifiably evaluate.
Then there is the question of the battle: succeeds? so the personality is supposed to "fight" evil? as opposed to what? I somehow tend to believe that things "are"... and not add some judgemental characterization. To me, "evil" is just a synonym of "other"...
2007-05-03 11:19:05 · answer #3 · answered by Eclipse owned 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would have to agree. Just ask yourself what is the difference, for instance, between a person who kills (say) a spouse and a person who might think about it but never do it: some people have a "stopper" somewhere: a conscience, a sense of wrong (or merely the fear of going to jail). Others do not....and the line between the one and the other is sometimes very thin.
2007-05-03 11:03:58 · answer #4 · answered by robert43041 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The answer to that question doesn't truly exist. We act out in an negative way when we seek to please ourselves by any means necessary. We act in a positive way whenever we seek to please others. And the factors that determines whether we act out in a positive way or a negative way are infinite. If, for example, you don't like someone, you would be more inclined to lash out at them to make yourself feel better than you would be to be pleasant in order to please them.
Or say that you find someones journal sitting on a park bench. Since the journal is of no value to you and we would get no satisfaction out of keeping it, you would most likely try to return it to the owner in order to please them. So many factors can influence us. But ultimately, neither good or evil triumphs. If someone shifts the balance in either direction, another will step up to equal it out. Someone attacks us, we strike back to prevent them form hurting anyone else. Someone does something positive for the world, and there will be someone who lashes out at them in jealousy. Evil will never succeed, but, then again, neither will good.
Regards, Siekuto.
2007-05-03 11:41:09 · answer #5 · answered by _ 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mac is a pushover. Lady M dominates him, pressures him to do what he doesn't truly believe. He's like one of those guys who is abused by his wife.
2007-05-09 14:21:00 · answer #6 · answered by starsonfire 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Evil exists in our minds.
2007-05-11 03:51:15 · answer #7 · answered by hoverlees 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Shakespear is Shakespear. You can't take him seriously.
2007-05-09 05:29:02 · answer #8 · answered by soulsearcherofthetruth 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
what is evil?
everyone has differnt "definations"
as if u were to ask me "are you happy?"
2007-05-03 12:33:42 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋