Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
An essay on reconciliation
Exploring the themes of forgiveness and reconciliation
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: An essay on reconciliation
Ambiguity is a natural part of life. Rarely is there ever a singular, definitive answer for anything. Justice is no exception. There is not one standard of justice: there are many. The standard can depend on history, on culture, on theology, or a variety of other factors. As different groups come together, though, having different standards of justice becomes a problem. The Oresteia, a three-part play by Aeschylus, and Death in Gaza, a film by James Miller, both showcase a struggle between two different standards of justice and the difficulty in reconciling such dissimilar ideals. Meanwhile, the clashes of conflicting standards of justice yield sadness, anger, despair, and death, thus highlighting the need to reconcile those ideas in some way. Reconciliation, though not portrayed as an easy objective to accomplish, is shown as a worthwhile endeavor. Though difficult to do, mutual acts of compromise are needed to resolve conflicts and create an established and agreeable standard of justice.
In the Oresteia, the conflict over the standard of justice of blood right has the characters struggling to administer proper justice. Clytemnestra’s killing of her husband Agamemnon falls in line with natural, maternal blood right, as she is administering justice unto Agamemnon for killing her daughter and disturbing the sacred bond between mother and child. However, Clytemnestra’s stance on blood right comes into conflict with her son’s stance. Orestes does agree with his mother’s perceived act of justice; instead, he sees it as an act that must be avenged. Orestes administers his own form of justice unto his mother by killing her as she had violated his societal, paternal blood right to his father with her murderous ways. Even the gods view ...
... middle of paper ...
... land-holding faction must be made to allow the other group to have something to make them complacent with the decision. Though surely more simplistic in theory than in reality, if there is hope for peace in the Gaza Strip, compromises must be made by both parties.
In conflicts ranging from the fables of ancient Greece to the wars of the Middle East today, compromise is a necessary part of meaningful reconciliation of different standards of justice. Though difficult, the rewards of establishing a singular standard of justice allow a society to unite behind a single principle and maintain fairness inclusive to all citizens. Not all conflicts of justice follow this model for success, though. Only time will tell if Israel and Palestine will follow the Oresteia and its model for compromise, or if justice in the region will continue to be a deadly, ambiguous concept.
A twenty-first century reading of the Iliad and the Odyssey will highlight a seeming lack of justice: hundreds of men die because of an adulteress, the most honorable characters are killed, the cowards survive, and everyone eventually goes to hell. Due to the difference in the time period, culture, prominent religions and values, the modern idea of justice is much different than that of Greece around 750 B.C. The idea of justice in Virgil’s the Aeneid is easier for us to recognize. As in our own culture, “justice” in the epic is based on a system of punishment for wrongs and rewards for honorable acts. Time and time again, Virgil provides his readers with examples of justice in the lives of his characters. Interestingly, the meaning of justice in the Aeneid transforms when applied to Fate and the actions of the gods. Unlike our modern (American) idea of blind, immutable Justice, the meanings and effects of justice shift, depending on whether its subject is mortal or immortal.
At first glance, the picture of justice found in the Oresteia appears very different from that found in Heraclitus. And indeed, at the surface level there are a number of things which are distinctly un-Heraclitean. However, I believe that a close reading reveals more similarities than differences; and that there is a deep undercurrent of the Heraclitean world view running throughout the trilogy. In order to demonstrate this, I will first describe those ways in which the views of justice in Aeschylus' Oresteia and in Heraclitus appear dissimilar. Then I will examine how these dissimilarities are problematized by other information in the Oresteia; information which expresses views of justice very akin to Heraclitus. Of course, how similar or dissimilar they are will depend not only on one's reading of the Oresteia, but also on how one interprets Heraclitus. Therefore, when I identify a way in which justice in the Oresteia seems different from that in Heraclitus, I will also identify the interpretation of Heraclitus with which I am contrasting it. Defending my interpretation of Heraclitean justice as such is beyond the scope of this essay. However I will always refer to the particular fragments on which I am basing my interpretation, and I think that the views I will attribute to him are fairly non-controversial. It will be my contention that, after a thorough examination of both the apparent discrepancies and the similarities, the nature of justice portrayed in the Oresteia will appear more deeply Heraclitean than otherwise. I will not argue, however, that there are therefore no differences at all between Aeschylus and Heraclitus on the issue of justice. Clearly there are some real ones and I will point out any differences which I feel remain despite the many deep similarities.
In Aeschylus' trilogy, the Greeks' justice system went through a transformation from old to new ways. In the beginning of the trilogy, the characters settle their matters, both personal and professional, with vengeance. Vengeance is when someone is harmed or killed, and either the victim, or someone close to them takes revenge on the criminal. This matter is proven in the trilogy numerous times. For example, Clytemnestra murders Agamemnon as revenge for his sacrifice of their daughter Iphigeneia. Along those same lines, in the second part of the trilogy, Choephoroe, Orestes, who is Agamemnon son, murders Clytemnestra and Aegisthus. He does this in order to gain revenge on them for killing his father. It was by this way that people would deal with conflict, and it was thought to be not only a justice system, but also a honorable and fair. In fact, one of the principal purposes of the first play of the trilogy is to force us to recognize that justice based on revenge creates special difficulties, which in turn cannot be solved. It does not solve the problems that it is meant to, but only causes more problems that are even larger. As the third and last part of the trilogy begins, the system begins to evolve and change from vengeance to genuine justice. Instead of getting revenge on Orestes and killing him, they decide to put him on trial and have a jury decide whether or not he sho...
In the literary works of the Oresteia there is a relationship built between the perpetuated cycle of violence and monarchy. The cycle of vengeance began with the slaughter of Thyestes children and continued throughout the generations of hierarchy. The wisdom of the gods has instilled the right to vengeance after wrong doing as read in the Libation Bearers. “Almighty Destinies, by the will of Zeus let these things be done, in the turning of Justice. For the word of hatred spoken, let hate be a word fulfilled. The spirit of Right cries out aloud and extracts atonement due: blood stroke for the stroke of blood shall be paid. Who acts, shall endure. So speaks the voice of age-old wisdom.”(lines 306-314). The sla...
Justice is generally thought to be part of one system; equally affecting all involved. We define justice as being fair or reasonable. The complications fall into the mix when an act of heroism occurs or morals are written or when fear becomes to great a force. These complications lead to the division of justice onto levels. In Aeschylus’ Oresteia and Plato’s Republic and Apology, both Plato and Aeschylus examine the views of justice and the morality of the justice system on two levels: in the city-state and the individual. However, Plato examines the justice system from the perfect society and Aeschylus starts at the curse on the House of Atreus and the blood spilled within the family of Agamemnon.
This marked the beginning of the Palestine armed conflict, one of its kinds to be witnessed in centuries since the fall of the Ottoman Empire and World War 1. Characterized by a chronology of endless confrontations, this conflict has since affected not only the Middle East relations, but also the gl...
On the streets of Jerusalem, in the rubble of Ramallah, in synagogues, in mosques, in the hearts and minds of millions in the Gaza Strip, the West Bank, and the remainder of Israel, Israelis and Palestinians are locked in a clash of civilizations. In his masterful work, The Clash of Civilizations, Samuel L. Huntington outlines a theory which approaches international politics on the scale of civilizations. However, he circumvents discussion about Israel. Huntington cautiously describes Israel as a “non-Western” (Huntington 90) country, but identifies the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as one along a fault line between civilizations (267). Though he chooses to avoid the issue, Huntington’s theory provides a groundwork for analyzing the conflict in Israel in terms of a clash of civilizations between Judaism and Islam. This is a dangerous and provocative idea. But if we dare examine its implications and explore its insights, we risk a more complete understanding of the conflict which has plagued relations between Palestinians and Israelis in particular, Muslim countries and Israel in general, for over fifty years.
The deeds enacted by Agamemnon and Orestes were the same by definition, but different by motive. Agamemnon's motives were impure in his decision between his daughter and his war. He chose to conquer Troy at Iphigenia's expense. For such a ruthless act, consequences are inevitable, and Agamemnon met his punishment at the hands of his vengeful wife, Clytemnestra. Orestes was able to escape such a fate due in part to his faith in the gods, his reluctant desire to kill, and one goddess' (Athena's) mercy. The matricide committed by Orestes was padded by vengeance, and validated by retributive justice. Athena identified with Orestes during his trial on the basis that neither she nor Orestes had a true mother, and thus cast the final stone in favor of Orestes.
... She was powerless to act otherwise. She was not a respected military leader like her husband. She couldn't bring him to court or change destiny in any other way. So, as a mother, she did what she felt she had to do. She acted for the justice of her child and her sex. When Agamemnon ordered the soldiers to put the bit in Iphigeneia's mouth before her sacrifice, it was because he didn't want to hear the cries of his daughter dying. Clytemnestra, however, forced her husband and the rest of Greece to hear the cries, the cries of the pained women and deal with the situation he did nothing to mend. For this she would be condemned, but because of her powerlessness, for this she was justified.
A possible solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the two-state solution. The two-state solution would become a peace agreement in which establishes a Palestinian state alongside the current state of Israel (Bourke). In the opinion of the Maghar Druze’s community, peace is the main objective in which the two-state solution could provide. As follows, most Israeli Druze’s would encourage the current peace talks in aim of a two-state agreement. Despite the fact that the two-state solution requires compromise in which it is believed the Palestinian are not able to accommodate. In particular, the Maghar Druze’s do not believe the Palestinians will ever be satisfied with a two-state agreement because of the need for retaliation fo...
M. E. McGuinness (Eds.), Words Over War: Mediation and Arbitration to Prevent Deadly Conflict (pp. 293-320). New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
When a person is accused of a crime they are either found innocent or guilty. This is the basic idea of justice and it is what many feel needs to happen if someone has done something controversial. In the play The Oresteia by Aeschylus, the story of Clytemnestra guilt or innocents is questioned. She does many things that people are not too happy with and those controversial actions throughout the story, mainly in the first part Agamemnon get her into the trouble. As we explore the case that builds against her innocents by exploring the killings of Agamemnon and Cassandra and the boastful expression about the killings.
In both Antigone and The Republic, elements of death, tyranny, morality, and societal roles are incorporated into each work’s definition of justice. Both works address the notions of justice in a societal form, and an individual form. However, these definitions of justice differ with some elements, they are closely tied with others.
In Aeschylus’ The Agamemnon, Agamemnon and Clytemnestra have to make tough decisions throughout the play, decisions they believe are justified. The actions of Agamemnon and Clytemnestra are not justified because they are caused by their blinding hubris and desire for power. Agamemnon makes the choice to kill his daughter just so he could lead his troops to Troy. Clytemnestra kills her husband, not just for revenge, but for his position and power as king of Mycenae. They make selfish choices and do not believe they will be punished for them. By exposing their true motives, Aeschylus makes it clear they are not justified in their actions.
...ng violated and it must terminate. From this paper, it is clear to see that discrimination against Arab-Palestinians is harmfully justified by Jewish Zionism, the Intifada is not a meaningless attack on the Jews, however, Arabs are quite hypocritical by reciprocating violence, and that the future may or may not hold peace in divided Israel because it, more or less, depends on Arab-Israeli compromises. As it is known, these compromises always tend to include conflicting agendas. Peace, surely, can be reached. It is merely decision regarding which side will initiate and negotiate first. Taking a look at peace talks today, this does not appear to be happening in the near future. It is amazing to bear witness to the incredible amount of violence and hate in a so-called “Holy Land.”