DEBATE: Alexander the Great

[Conrad_Jalowski]

To Hans7:
___________________________________


According to Classical Greek tragedy and ethical theory, the greatest flaw was the sin of hubris [hybris] that in its original and mythological connotation described the hubristic individual as one who believed that they were equal to or greater than the sempiternal, omniscient and ominpotent gods. An example in Classical Greek mythology was the figure of Bellerophon who attempted to ascend to the realm of the gods [Empyrean: the heavenly realm of the incorporeal] of the Olympian Pantheon through the winged horse Pegasus. In addition, Aeschylus viewed the hubris of the Medio-Achaemenid dynasts of Persia as their downfall [Example: Darius I and Xerxes I]. Such immoderation/excess or hubris through the insatiable and voracious desire for the subjugation of others resulted in nemesis or a divine retribution with the repulsion of Persian troops and the defeat of the Persian viceroy Mardonius that resulted in the loss of Persian hegemony over Thessaly, Thessalonica, Macedonia, Thrace, etc and the humiliation of the Persian "Megas Basileus" [Great King].

Aristotle differed slightly from the earlier mythological viewpoints of hubris as a sin followed by the divine retribution from the gods. In Aristotelian tragedy/literary theory, the hamartia [The tragic flaw] is the sin/flaw of hubris. This is then followed by peripeteia [A reversal in fortune] and then by anagnorisis [A realization of the tragic flaw of hubris]. Finally, catharsis [A purgation of raw emotions] and an epiphany [A revelation] occur. Thus, the Aristotelian tragic figure though of good qualities in general and endowed with superior elements [In the domains of the intellect, heritage, prowess, etc] underwent a form of moral dilapidation [decay] and in turn would suffer a reversal of grace and fortune. Aristotle carried on the viewpoint of hubris being a sin of excess/immoderation from its mythological connotation, however, it was categorized and given a distinct character through his compilation of literary theory. In his "Nicomachean Ethics", the aim of the good and happy life [Eudaimonia] and of achieving greatness was the path of moderation. Sophrosyne [moderation] was contained between the two separate polarities of immoderation/excess: hubris or in the Aristotelian sense an emerging definition of arrogance and overvaulting pride, and pusillanimity or the state of being irresolute, cowardly and vacillating. Thus, two main endpoints arose: the concept of megalomania or "greatness" acquired through coercion, domination, subjugation, etc which Alexander III of Macedonia embodied, and megalopsychia ["A magnanimity of the soul"] which is greatness not through processes or acts of subjugation and the imposition of will but through friendship, benevolence, kindness, moderation, love, continence, the acquisition of knowledge, etc.

The dilapidation or decay of the tragic figure had two main effects upon the audience: either instilling fear and trepidation or offering a transcendence from vulgar human passions and from humanity's obsequious bondage to vice and barbarism by avoiding the flaws that led to the downfall of the tragic figure. Thus, through catharsis the audience is driven through internal turmoil and fury that results in a certain upheaval of the soul and a transitional phase that ends with either 1. An elevation and transcendence from human baseness through an emotional purgation or 2. A degradation and debasement of the human character with the futility of individual sovereignty and individual autonomy leading to a person with his innermost recesses as inchoate [Senseless, massless and formless], repellent and shrouded in the tenebrous or unshaped/unformed and to forever dwell in ignominy and defeat.

1.) In the mythological context, hubris was defined as a general means of immoderation/excess by challenging the will of the gods leading to divine retibution or nemesis;
2.) In the context of Aristotelian literary, dramatic and ethical philosophy, to be consumed by hubris was an indication of moral dilapidation and was defined as a specific kind of immoderation through pride and vainglory; and
3.) The modern, contemporary connotation of the tragic flaw is that hubris simply refers to anyone who is arrogant and conceited as opposed to a process of decay featured within Classical Greek, Roman and Renaissance literary, dramatic and aesthetical elements.

[Hans7]

Conrad why do you underline random words and use crappy brackets all over the place. What is the point of putting [hybris] when everybody uses the word hubris? Do you copy and paste this from somewhere? Anyway, your post might be long, but that doesn't mean there is any substance in your post. You fail to understand the difference between quantity and quality. Quality is what you should be shooting for not quantity. Seriously though, change your format that you post in because it is so irritating to read.

[Wildor]

Okay Brotherhood. Let's just forget about it. Nothing happened.





I'll just remind you all to keep this civilized, please.



Thank you.

[Elana*]

Conrad why do you underline random words and use crappy brackets all over the place. What is the point of putting [hybris] when everybody uses the word hubris? Do you copy and paste this from somewhere? Anyway, your post might be long, but that doesn't mean there is any substance in your post. You fail to understand the difference between quantity and quality. Quality is what you should be shooting for not quantity. Seriously though, change your format that you post in because it is so irritating to read.

You know, he knows a lot about history, and I find he's posts interesting to read, as I love history and I'm taking that subject too. Plus the font is elegant. And he took some of that, from one of his essays, supposedly.

[Tsubasa]

I like conrad's posts but they are too long to read
alexander was a cool guy he was a great leader
what makes people great leader isn't what they learnt or thought but their strong will
this will gathers people around and make them believe things and work harder for it
like Che Guevera's last words to his killer
'shoot now you will just kill a man'
or Mehmet II the Conqueror of Constantinapole(Istanbul) he started to draw plans at the age of 9
and when he was 21 while besieging
'either I take Constantinapole or it will take me'
people always would love to follow the ones that dare

[Conrad_Jalowski]

Mr. Hans7, you are either ignorant or invidious of my superior intellectual abilities. In addition, I was not aware that everyone utilizes the term "hubris". I was under the impression that daily speech is vulgar and unrefined.
_________________________________________________

Here is the link to my above short piece regarding the term hubris in the Greco-Roman mythological context and in Aristotelian dramatic and aesthetical theory:

http://mynapoleonobsession.blogspot.com/2009/09/napoleon-maxim.html?showComment=1254281586191#c901920912995 9306652

[joemanf]

Conrad why do you underline random words and use crappy brackets all over the place. What is the point of putting [hybris] when everybody uses the word hubris? Do you copy and paste this from somewhere? Anyway, your post might be long, but that doesn't mean there is any substance in your post. You fail to understand the difference between quantity and quality. Quality is what you should be shooting for not quantity. Seriously though, change your format that you post in because it is so irritating to read.

You think he copy and pasted? HAH! You obviously know nothing about him. Also, I didn't see one thing to counter his argument. Only a bunch of flames spewed in his direction.

[LaoOmologo]

Conrad why do you underline random words and use crappy brackets all over the place. What is the point of putting [hybris] when everybody uses the word hubris? Do you copy and paste this from somewhere? Anyway, your post might be long, but that doesn't mean there is any substance in your post. You fail to understand the difference between quantity and quality. Quality is what you should be shooting for not quantity. Seriously though, change your format that you post in because it is so irritating to read.

Conrad is the most respected (as an civilized man) man in these fourms dude. He does NOT copy and paste, as I have tried to find that out. Besides almost every post he does is as intellectual as this!

So YOU failed here.

[BrotherhoodUK]

my superior intellectual abilities.

Four words, right there.

Conrad's just about the only person to crush someone's argument by using four words.

Anyhoo.

Flaming Conrad won't get you anywhere. Seriously, all you're doing is flaming him. And failing.

[LaoOmologo]

Ok back to the topic now... the thread turned into a flaming centre now...

A new question:
Alexander the Great:

Do you think he would be more victorious if he DIDN'T marry a babylonian after the victory?