The protagonist in this play, Alceste, is exactly the opposite of a reasonable person. He stays in a state of hyperbole throughout the entire play. He is very dramatic, and continuously lets his emotions overtake his logic and reasoning. The flip-side of Alceste is Philinte, who seems to be ruled by reason and what is socially acceptable. Alceste is constantly preaching, begging, crying, and shouting about everything in this play, while Philinte is always trying to calm Alceste down, and reason with him. In my opinion, in society, Alceste represents the 'ugly truth', while Philante symbolizes the 'watered-down version of the truth'. It can sometimes be difficult to decipher which can be best utilized according to social norms, and this is something I struggle with.
Ironically, in the midst of all his drama, Alceste seems to make some very important points--one in particular which resonated with me was when he said, "to honor all men is to honor none." I have to agree with this observation. As college students, we pay money to have people grade us on our thoughts, and when they give us a bad grade, we get very upset. Therefore we expect them to be honest, no matter how brutal that honesty is to accept. Grades would have no value if everyone made As. I know I have also heard some professors express concern about how difficult it is to deliver a bad grade to a student they have grown fond of during their interaction, therefore they keep a comfortable distance from students. I know as college students, we tend to not respect professors that give all As, or even all Fs, because we are usually certain that the entire class cannot be on the same level of intelligence. While we all tend to smooth some social interactions over, I think we still yearn for a brutal honesty that can be refreshing among many social "white lies".
In my opinion, a modern-day misanthrope would be somebody like Suli Breaks, who talks about how school does not inspire education, but yet most of his audience for his videos are students. I think he could be alienating himself from people who explore formal education.
Suli Breaks on exams
It is interesting that a misanthrope is defined as someone who is anti-social, but no one would realize they were a misanthrope if they were not around someone else in a social situation who could make that observation. Can you still be a misanthrope if there is no one around to label you a misanthrope? I have to say I admire people who are not afraid to express the truth, whether I agree or not. I think this gets skewed when people start believing their opinion is the truth.
I enjoyed your post very much, Carol. I agree that there is a sense of a desire for honesty in society (at least, that's what people say they want). Though, I do not believe that it would go over well. Would it actually be refreshing to hear nothing but honesty? Is there really a need for the ugly truth in every social circumstance?
ReplyDeleteIf a person never took part in social interactions, I do not think that society would label them as a misanthrope. This alternative is more probable: "That mysterious, creeping figure in the woods shrouded by darkness that no one has ever seen and lived to tell the tale."
I love this post and thoroughly agree with you!! I do believe that treating everyone the same or, as you suggested, giving everyone A's will not lead to any progress.
ReplyDeleteAs far as the question regarding misanthrope, I believe that it is comparable to the question, "If a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear it, does it still make a sound?" If a person literally never has an interaction with another human being then no one would even know he or she existed and would not be able to label them specifically as a misanthrope.
Again, I really enjoyed this post and reading what you got from the play!
Good points, Carol, and good comments! I agree, Rachel, that misanthropes and society seem to create a zen koan of sorts: how can one exist without the other?
ReplyDelete