"L'enfer c'est les autres"--JP Sartre
This year, students will explore the theme of otherness. What defines the mainstream and how does this mainstream dictate to others? What does it mean to be marginalized? How has the mainstream impacted the world of ideas across the centuries?
No, in all seriousness, madness is (vaguely) a sort of mental state that overcomes an individual that causes a divided between said individual society. In this sense, yes Medea is mad, for in no society, or at least no society that I know of, is the killing of kin accepted or promoted or the killing of one's sovereign for that matter. All these are things that Medea has done. Despite this, through the definition I gave, madness is not always bad, so to cover my bases I will cite an example of someone who was mad, who was civilly disobedient, and who has had a positive effect on the world: Ghandi. I bet right now your like: "WOAH Dude, my mind has just been blown in a most excellent way" (reference to Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, not the bogus one that followed). To look at this example plainly, you have to admit that someone who is willing to stand up against the British Empire in a pacifistic manor, although awesome, can very easily be called a mad man. Most likely, he would have been called a madman had he not succeeded.
I tend to agree with Andrew. To say the least, Medea is not amongst the most normal characters I have ever read about, but does her inner strength and passion for her husband make her mad? In my opinion she is a little bit of both. Being as smart as she is, makes her potential madness even more frightening. By deciding to murder the children instead of Jason himself is the easiest way to make him suffer for what he has done. If she just killed Jason, his suffering over and she would not be able to achieve complete satisfaction. I know this makes her sound completely nuts, but there is something about her that makes me pity her and want to take her side. It may be the fact that she was dumped and the way it was done was not right at all, or it may just be the fact that crazy is not that scary to me. To go back to to andrew's post: In the case of Ghandi, yes if he had not succeeded he would have been called a madman, but does that really apply to Medea? In her case, isn't is the fact that she did succeed that makes her mad?
I believe that madness is something that is progressive either because of repeated events that make you angry or because of a disease that hinders your judgement. In Medea's case, it is neither one of those things because her change in circumstances is so instantaneous and she still understand what she is doing. Medea might be irrational but she is not mad. Her extreme actions come from the fact that she despises being humiliated and wants to assert her role as a member of divinity (superiority). Furthermore, she is a witch and she poses powers which allow her to defy the rules of human nature and seek vengeance in the ways she can. She is not mad because she utilizes what is at her disposal and in this case, it is her self that is a hazard to others-she cannot change that. Medea gave up everything she had for jason (although she was under a curse) and kept her witch side away to be the obedient wife. But, now that she has been almost taken advantage of, she wants to prove that she is not weak and will not be pitied. She is going back to her roots as a witch and is essentially being who she always was-it is not madness. People might assume that she is mad because she goes from an obedient and loving wife to a baby killer. But really, wasn't the obedient and loving wife her fake persona for ten years? Medea's refuses to be humiliated and left feeling helpless because in her opinion, no divine figure should ever be subject to such disrespect, especially from a mortal. She is just reacting like any other "God" and punishing those who have caused her harm. Do we say that Poseidon is "mad" when he starts a storm to punish those who have insulted him?
I agree, however I think that Medea is on the borderline of brilliance and madness. She is brilliant because she is able to get away with her revenge; she crafts her plan so well that her thoughts seems rational and not to mention her rhetoric is definitely a sign of brilliance. However, it could be argued that she is mad, simply because she goes to far. She is always in excess: in love and in revenge and to me madness in a way is a sort of excess in a certain emotion, therefore by that definition Medea could be considered mad. The point is brilliance and madness often go hand in hand, it is almost like if one cannot be brilliant without being slightly mad. For example, all of the most renown serial killers are considered extremely brilliant in the way they plan and execute their crimes, however they are also mad since they wanted to commit these crimes in the first place. Therefore I feel as if Medea might be mad, but at the same time she isn't.
I completely agree with the fact that you cannot be brilliant without being a little mad but i don't think that being the "obedient wife" was Medea's fake persona. I think that she was so deeply in love with Jason that she changed herself for his good and that of her children and that this was not just a different face, but that it was actually the real Medea. I feel that Medea is someone who is motivated by love, and when there is no more love, deep hatred comes in its place. Medea does go too far, but does her lack of control over he emotion mean she is irrational or that she is mad?
Emily Dickinson said: MUCH madness is divinest sense To a discerning eye; Much sense the starkest madness. ’T is the majority In this, as all, prevails. 5 Assent, and you are sane; Demur,—you ’re straightway dangerous, And handled with a chain.
I think that the use of the term "mad" here is interesting because mad also means "angry." And Madea is angry. She is so angry that she is compared to a Fury and it is that anger that pushes her to commit all of her evil deeds. In Madea, madness and mad merge together. Her anger is so strong and her personality so strong that she becomes mad in the sense that she is out of control. I think that madness in Madea's case has little to do with her actions in themselves but with the fact that no one or nothing (not even herself) can control her. If it were grief or love that sparked her actions, even mixed with her character would not have created as deadly a cocktail as anger mixed with excessiveness. Indeed, love and grief are not violent in themselves the way that anger is; from anger can stem nothing positive. But here, because anger is at the root of her actions, they are unleashed particularly heinously. Madness needs a different definition for each person it captures. In Madea's case, her madness is her out of control anger. Because she is filled with such anger she is filled with violence and after a certain point there is no simmering down what has already bubbled over the top.
Well if we see madness as insanity, this question is difficult to answer. The book has, like we said, two different perspectives (Medea and Jason).So is Medea mad when she kills her children or is she rational? The book is basically a contrast between emotion and reason. In this perspective, the play is not so much about madness as about emotion on the part of Medea. She kills the children not because she doesn't love them, but because she hates Jason more than she loves them. This is very emotional, but also a reasoned approach. Can we condemn her as insane just because her husband really really (really) hurt her? Reason for Medea is deeply intertwined with emotion; reason is just a secondary factor of emotion. As with Jason, emotion is only secondary factor of reason. Jason loves his boys, but his real motivations for wanting them are reasoned out (having heirs), not the result of simple love. Same goes for his new wife and the context in which he leaves Medea. He marries someone else because of the power it will bring him; a rational thing to do, not emotional, he then leaves Medea because it is the norm; again a rational thing (at that time) to do but not emotional.
In this sense I agree with Layla that Medea is not insane but I dot not agree with her reasons. We shouldn't forget that witches and mythological gods are only human made creations with human feelings. Their only superiority is an advantage in killing in a cooler and creative fashion; this however does not justify their cause in any circumstance. The gods were portrayed as extremely arrogant, lustful, greedy and unjust creatures. If anything the gods are insane; toying with humans and destroying countless lives usually for their stupid love affairs. So coming back to Medea; her want for revenge is acceptable (as a human emotion) but the manner of execution is not.
Sparta.
ReplyDeleteNo, in all seriousness, madness is (vaguely) a sort of mental state that overcomes an individual that causes a divided between said individual society. In this sense, yes Medea is mad, for in no society, or at least no society that I know of, is the killing of kin accepted or promoted or the killing of one's sovereign for that matter. All these are things that Medea has done. Despite this, through the definition I gave, madness is not always bad, so to cover my bases I will cite an example of someone who was mad, who was civilly disobedient, and who has had a positive effect on the world: Ghandi. I bet right now your like: "WOAH Dude, my mind has just been blown in a most excellent way" (reference to Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure, not the bogus one that followed). To look at this example plainly, you have to admit that someone who is willing to stand up against the British Empire in a pacifistic manor, although awesome, can very easily be called a mad man. Most likely, he would have been called a madman had he not succeeded.
I tend to agree with Andrew. To say the least, Medea is not amongst the most normal characters I have ever read about, but does her inner strength and passion for her husband make her mad?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion she is a little bit of both. Being as smart as she is, makes her potential madness even more frightening. By deciding to murder the children instead of Jason himself is the easiest way to make him suffer for what he has done. If she just killed Jason, his suffering over and she would not be able to achieve complete satisfaction. I know this makes her sound completely nuts, but there is something about her that makes me pity her and want to take her side. It may be the fact that she was dumped and the way it was done was not right at all, or it may just be the fact that crazy is not that scary to me. To go back to to andrew's post: In the case of Ghandi, yes if he had not succeeded he would have been called a madman, but does that really apply to Medea? In her case, isn't is the fact that she did succeed that makes her mad?
I believe that madness is something that is progressive either because of repeated events that make you angry or because of a disease that hinders your judgement. In Medea's case, it is neither one of those things because her change in circumstances is so instantaneous and she still understand what she is doing.
ReplyDeleteMedea might be irrational but she is not mad. Her extreme actions come from the fact that she despises being humiliated and wants to assert her role as a member of divinity (superiority). Furthermore, she is a witch and she poses powers which allow her to defy the rules of human nature and seek vengeance in the ways she can. She is not mad because she utilizes what is at her disposal and in this case, it is her self that is a hazard to others-she cannot change that.
Medea gave up everything she had for jason (although she was under a curse) and kept her witch side away to be the obedient wife. But, now that she has been almost taken advantage of, she wants to prove that she is not weak and will not be pitied. She is going back to her roots as a witch and is essentially being who she always was-it is not madness. People might assume that she is mad because she goes from an obedient and loving wife to a baby killer. But really, wasn't the obedient and loving wife her fake persona for ten years?
Medea's refuses to be humiliated and left feeling helpless because in her opinion, no divine figure should ever be subject to such disrespect, especially from a mortal. She is just reacting like any other "God" and punishing those who have caused her harm.
Do we say that Poseidon is "mad" when he starts a storm to punish those who have insulted him?
I agree, however I think that Medea is on the borderline of brilliance and madness. She is brilliant because she is able to get away with her revenge; she crafts her plan so well that her thoughts seems rational and not to mention her rhetoric is definitely a sign of brilliance. However, it could be argued that she is mad, simply because she goes to far. She is always in excess: in love and in revenge and to me madness in a way is a sort of excess in a certain emotion, therefore by that definition Medea could be considered mad. The point is brilliance and madness often go hand in hand, it is almost like if one cannot be brilliant without being slightly mad. For example, all of the most renown serial killers are considered extremely brilliant in the way they plan and execute their crimes, however they are also mad since they wanted to commit these crimes in the first place. Therefore I feel as if Medea might be mad, but at the same time she isn't.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with the fact that you cannot be brilliant without being a little mad but i don't think that being the "obedient wife" was Medea's fake persona. I think that she was so deeply in love with Jason that she changed herself for his good and that of her children and that this was not just a different face, but that it was actually the real Medea. I feel that Medea is someone who is motivated by love, and when there is no more love, deep hatred comes in its place. Medea does go too far, but does her lack of control over he emotion mean she is irrational or that she is mad?
ReplyDeleteEmily Dickinson said:
ReplyDeleteMUCH madness is divinest sense
To a discerning eye;
Much sense the starkest madness.
’T is the majority
In this, as all, prevails. 5
Assent, and you are sane;
Demur,—you ’re straightway dangerous,
And handled with a chain.
I think that the use of the term "mad" here is interesting because mad also means "angry." And Madea is angry. She is so angry that she is compared to a Fury and it is that anger that pushes her to commit all of her evil deeds. In Madea, madness and mad merge together. Her anger is so strong and her personality so strong that she becomes mad in the sense that she is out of control.
ReplyDeleteI think that madness in Madea's case has little to do with her actions in themselves but with the fact that no one or nothing (not even herself) can control her. If it were grief or love that sparked her actions, even mixed with her character would not have created as deadly a cocktail as anger mixed with excessiveness. Indeed, love and grief are not violent in themselves the way that anger is; from anger can stem nothing positive. But here, because anger is at the root of her actions, they are unleashed particularly heinously.
Madness needs a different definition for each person it captures. In Madea's case, her madness is her out of control anger. Because she is filled with such anger she is filled with violence and after a certain point there is no simmering down what has already bubbled over the top.
Well if we see madness as insanity, this question is difficult to answer. The book has, like we said, two different perspectives (Medea and Jason).So is Medea mad when she kills her children or is she rational? The book is basically a contrast between emotion and reason. In this perspective, the play is not so much about madness as about emotion on the part of Medea. She kills the children not because she doesn't love them, but because she hates Jason more than she loves them. This is very emotional, but also a reasoned approach. Can we condemn her as insane just because her husband really really (really) hurt her? Reason for Medea is deeply intertwined with emotion; reason is just a secondary factor of emotion. As with Jason, emotion is only secondary factor of reason. Jason loves his boys, but his real motivations for wanting them are reasoned out (having heirs), not the result of simple love. Same goes for his new wife and the context in which he leaves Medea. He marries someone else because of the power it will bring him; a rational thing to do, not emotional, he then leaves Medea because it is the norm; again a rational thing (at that time) to do but not emotional.
ReplyDeleteIn this sense I agree with Layla that Medea is not insane but I dot not agree with her reasons. We shouldn't forget that witches and mythological gods are only human made creations with human feelings. Their only superiority is an advantage in killing in a cooler and creative fashion; this however does not justify their cause in any circumstance. The gods were portrayed as extremely arrogant, lustful, greedy and unjust creatures. If anything the gods are insane; toying with humans and destroying countless lives usually for their stupid love affairs. So coming back to Medea; her want for revenge is acceptable (as a human emotion) but the manner of execution is not.
ReplyDelete