I'm sure Iago wasn't Everyman back in 1604

FinsburyParkCarrots

But he seems to be, now. The workaday paradox of the conciliatory backstabber: maybe once upon a time such a concept was horrifically new. Now it's accepted as a universal part and parcel of the human condition.

catefrances

imho othello was weak to have listened to that conniving little shyster. it always busts my hump when the word of a third person is taken over that of one of the two principles involved. especially when there is a little doubt about how reputable the third person is.

grooveamatic

But what can we do about it?

FinsburyParkCarrots

I'm surprised no-one said, "But what about Judas?"

catefrances

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

I'm surprised no-one said, "But what about Judas?"

well there is the contention that what weve come to know about judas was just christian propaganda.

FinsburyParkCarrots

My point's about the naturalisation of capitalist ideology and constructions of the duplicitous, self-serving individual willing to destroy society around him for gain. There are people who argue that a lot of characters in Shakespeare, including Regan and Goneril, and Edmund the Bastard in King Lear, and Iachimo in Cymbeline are protoypes of a Hobbesian, and new capitalist mentality. I'm wondering whether we come to read character traits of certain characters as natural or whether they were new and alien in their time: the old Marxian adage being that social being determines consciousness. However, earlier literary characters such as Judas, who sold his master for thirty pieces of silver, are pretty unambiguously constructed according to a universal pattern of the two faced, ambitious and servile wretch.

Often these characters emerge in scenes of social chaos, or change, though. I thought the baddie in Dickens' Dombey and Son, James Carker. As traditional social mores go out of the window in the face of corporate expansionism, a toad like Carker thrives.

FinsburyParkCarrots

I would have edited "character traits of certain characters", obviously, had I the option.

catefrances

obviously. :rolleyes:

catefrances

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

My point's about the naturalisation of capitalist ideology and constructions of the duplicitous, self-serving individual willing to destroy society around him for gain. There are people who argue that a lot of characters in Shakespeare, including Regan and Goneril, and Edmund the Bastard in King Lear, and Iachimo in Cymbeline are protoypes of a Hobbesian, and new capitalist mentality. I'm wondering whether we come to read character traits of certain characters as natural or whether they were new and alien in their time: the old Marxian adage being that social being determines consciousness. However, earlier literary characters such as Judas, who sold his master for thirty pieces of silver, are pretty unambiguously constructed according to a universal pattern of the two faced, ambitious and servile wretch.

Often these characters emerge in scenes of social chaos, or change, though. I thought the baddie in Dickens' Dombey and Son, James Carker. As traditional social mores go out of the window in the face of corporate expansionism, a toad like Carker thrives.

well does not capitalism destroy society by appealing to our apparently 'natural' want of more and the 'need' to best those around us, which puts us at odds with our fellow man because we are all competing for the same thing, whilst at the same time holding capitalism up as the saviour of that society.

Jeremy1012

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

I'm surprised no-one said, "But what about Judas?"

Judas is the most unfairly lambasted character in history. Along with Pilate.


*ducks for cover from christians*

FinsburyParkCarrots

catefrances wrote:

well does not capitalism destroy society by appealing to our apparently 'natural' want of more and the 'need' to best those around us, which puts us at odds with our fellow man because we are all competing for the same thing, whilst at the same time holding capitalism up as the saviour of that society.

Nope. Not if you say social conditions determine our consciousness, and if you're suspicious of the ways in which capitalist ideology and certain forms of evolutionary thinking are linked.

catefrances

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

Nope. Not if you say social conditions determine our consciousness, and if you're suspicious of the ways in which capitalist ideology and certain forms of evolutionary thinking are linked.

ah but i didnt say that, did i?

justam

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

But he seems to be, now. The workaday paradox of the conciliatory backstabber: maybe once upon a time such a concept was horrifically new. Now it's accepted as a universal part and parcel of the human condition.

It seems to me that the conciliatory backstabber-type has probably been around for quite a while (because there are always people without power trying to get what they want without dealing with the consequences of doing it directly) but I think perhaps the newer thing is the shamelessness of people who are discovered to be like this.

In earlier times, it seems like it would carried worse social repercussions. But, maybe I'm wrong?

justam

it seems like it would have carried

Byrnzie

Jeremy1012 wrote:

Judas is the most unfairly lambasted character in history. Along with Pilate.


*ducks for cover from christians*

Have you read 'The Gospel of Judas'? Turns out Judas betrayed Jesus at Jesus' bidding, and was regarded by Jesus as his most favoured disciple.

Byrnzie

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

I'm surprised no-one said, "But what about Judas?"

Were there no backstabbers mentioned in 'The Iliad'?

I've still not read it. I'e got a copy of Lattimore's translation with me here though.

olderman

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

I'm surprised no-one said, "But what about Judas?"

judas had god on his side

TrixieCat

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

But he seems to be, now. The workaday paradox of the conciliatory backstabber: maybe once upon a time such a concept was horrifically new. Now it's accepted as a universal part and parcel of the human condition.

I agree and it is pretty pathetic.
A person will not think twice about using someone's weakness to gain an advantage.

theskyabove

I don't even know who Iago is....



:( I'm sure I can find out, but i'm tired and i need a bath

catefrances

theskyabove wrote:

I don't even know who Iago is....

he is othello's advisor.

reeferchief

Exploition was happening long before people were writing about it, I have no evidence to support that, but it is a natural trait and it has been since the dawn of mankind.

catefrances

reeferchief wrote:

Exploition was happening long before people were writing about it, I have no evidence to support that, but it is a natural trait and it has been since the dawn of mankind.

it's true, trust me? :rolleyes:
come on reefer, you cant just say something like that and not be able to back it up. i do believe they call that kind of thing 'faith'. trust me i have no evidence but...

reeferchief

catefrances wrote:

it's true, trust me? :rolleyes:
come on reefer, you cant just say something like that and not be able to back it up. i do believe they call that kind of thing 'faith'. trust me i have no evidence but...

Exploitation, I'm only replying to correct my grammar, lol.
As long as there has been people, then advantage has been taken at some point from one to another, I need no proof, it's plain to see.

catefrances

reeferchief wrote:

Exploitation, I'm only replying to correct my grammar, lol.
As long as there has been people, then advantage has been taken at some point from one to another, I need no proof, it's plain to see.

so where is the line drawn between advantage and exploitation?

if i find your weakness and use it, is that me exploiting you or me just making a wise and informed decision to my advantage based on the knowledge i have attained?

reeferchief

catefrances wrote:

so where is the line drawn between advantage and exploitation?

if i find your weakness and use it, is that me exploiting you or me just making a wise and informed decision to my advantage based on the knowledge i have attained?

I think Trent Reznors blurry one best describes it.
You know what I'm saying about the fact that humans have exploited others when possible and need be, to be true, your just getting pedantic about it.:)

catefrances

reeferchief wrote:

I think Trent Reznors blurry one best describes it.
You know what I'm saying about the fact that humans have exploited others when possible and need be, to be true, your just getting pedantic about it.:)

so now you're saying there are times when there is a need for exploitation?

me? pedantic? NEVER!!

reeferchief

catefrances wrote:

so now you're saying there are times when there is a need for exploitation?

me? pedantic? NEVER!!

No all I'm saying is, that people have been exploiting others since the dawn of time.

catefrances

reeferchief wrote:

No all I'm saying is, that people have been exploiting others since the dawn of time.

now that sounds like revisionist history to me. you say since the dawn of time and yet without proof we really have no clue. we look back from our perspective, see that ever since history has been recorded, exploitation has occurred. i'm not saying it didnt happen but i cant be as damn sure as you.

reeferchief

catefrances wrote:

now that sounds like revisionist history to me. you say since the dawn of time and yet without proof we really have no clue. we look back from our perspective, see that ever since history has been recorded, exploitation has occurred. i'm not saying it didnt happen but i cant be as damn sure as you.

The surroundings grow more complex, but the basics underneath are the same.

catefrances

reeferchief wrote:

The surroundings grow more complex, but the basics underneath are the same.

just cause that's the way it's become doesn't mean that's the way it's always been. that's all i'm saying.

theskyabove

othello wasn't written without motive... err whatever
this so opens such the can of worms, it's not even funny

ever laugh when someone falls down?
i mean, come on...