Where are the morals?

So I just finished reading from Hobbes. (I see why it’s called Leviathan now!) Although it was difficult to get past the first 40 pages of definitions, there were some things about what Hobbes had to say about commonwealths that struck me.

What most interested me is that Hobbes seems to argue that in the absence of commonwealth, concepts such as justice and the like don’t apply. Hobbes says: “Where there is no common power, there is no law, where no law, no injustice” It’s difficult to explain, but I find myself opposed to that assertion, as I find myself opposed to many other assertions made in the portion of the book that I’ve read.

I guess what I’m wondering is: where are the morals here? What role do morals play in determining justice? I find myself connecting justice and morals in a way that defines “justice” in a little bit of a different way that Hobbes does. I have a hard time separating morals from justice and/or injustice, whereas Hobbes treats them as entirely separate. If I was a wanderer, completely separate from any commonwealth, my actions, according to Hobbes, cannot be unjust, but I still feel as though I would view them as unjust due to morals.

One of the other things that struck me, is that Hobbes tends to see issues in black and white, so to speak. There’s either war or peace, justice or injustice, love or hate, honour or dishonour, etc. There seems to be no middle ground in such issues, which is not the way I've seen the world in my experience. I would tend to see a middle ground in a lot of these issues such as war and peace. So, in trying so hard to define the world, does Hobbes overlook a middle ground, or am I seeing a middle ground where it really doesn't exist?

Is Hobbes writing as he does, and using the definitions he does only to describe concepts in relation to commonwealths, or is he trying to also describe the human condition? If so, is he doing it justice? 

Doctor Faustus acted out!

Not satisfied with just READING Doctor Faustus?

Sometimes, reading a play is just not the same as seeing it acted out.
If you're interested, here's a link! It is quite well acted out, so check it out!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9cPT-HH198g

What about Haimon?

In Antigone, the one character that seems to be overlooked in our discussion so far is Haimon. Perhaps it is because he doesn’t really dominantly appear until part-way through the play, or perhaps it’s because he’s just not as interesting a character as Antigone or Kreon. Nevertheless, there are some interesting points about Haimon which I would like to bring up.

Haimon seems to be caught between his promised marriage to Antigone (who admits to Ismene that she could never love him for her obsession with death) and his devotion to his father, the ruler Kreon.  Haimon, who only shows up halfway into the play, delivers his first lines to his father, saying: “You [Kreon] direct a course for me with good intentions, and I follow it. I don’t believe marriage is more important to me than you and your good leadership.” (46). This point of view is not consistent with Haimon’s later actions, however, when he kills himself for his love of Antigone, completely betraying his father and the state.

Haimon’s next lines on page 49, however, remind me of Gorgias for some reason… Haimon, after flattering his father, goes on to say: “Please be different this once…It is honorable to learn from honest men.” (49). In this statement, is Haimon implying that Kreon is not honorable? What implications does/could this have for Haimon? In the following pages, Kreon and Haimon have a disagreement, where Haimon decidedly takes Antigone’s side, thus disobeying and dishonoring his father, who then regards him as “a slave; Property of a woman.” (51). Interesting. Kreon clearly now views Haimon to be an enemy of the state also.

Does Haimon truly stand by Antigone’s actions, or does he only want to disagree with Kreon? Does Haimon have more to lose (i.e. the throne) if he sides with Antigone or Kreon? Do you think Haimon is aware that Antigone has no intention of marrying him when he sides with her against his father and the state? Can Haimon possibly guess that Antigone has a death wish when he's making plans to marry her?

Haimon kills himself in the tomb. The messenger claims that it was out on anger at Kreon, but that can’t have been the only factor. Antigone had also committed suicide, which came as a shock to Haimon. Having dishonored Kreon and lost his only other connection to the throne (Antigone), Haimon kills himself. From his actions, what can we make of Haimon’s character? On one hand, Haimon’s character can be seen as selfish: he only claims to love Antigone and care about the state and morals, but he is really only looking out for self-interests. He agrees with his father ONLY UNTIL he realizes that in agreeing, Antigone will likely die, delaying his ascension to the throne. On the other hand, Haimon, being the only son of Kreon, would likely inherit the throne anyway, once Kreon was dead, so killing himself after Antigone was dead could not have been his childish reaction to losing the throne. He simply pulled a Romeo… only Antigone can't really be compared to Juliet, so that analogy only works from "Romeo's" perspective...unrequited love...

In any case, Haimon is just as interesting a character as any other, albeit a little underdeveloped by Sophocles.

Since Antigone, in contrast, is a very well-studied character, it is interesting to put study Haimon in relation to Antigone. Do Haimon and Antigone ever have an actual conversation? Does Antigone even know that she is to marry Haimon, or does Kreon keep it to himself? It is even more interesting to view the relationship between Haimon and Antigone in light of Butler’s Antigone’s Claim, taking into consideration the character analysis of Antigone.

Thoughts?