Q10

[rezamza]

Im not sure Im able to make a strong argument as to why one of these answers is better than another (between B and C), and Id like help if anyones willing...

Lesky believes that a path or decision is equally constrained by both divine and personal influences. While the gods provide the path (chosen for their own reasons), the individual adheres to it or not. "Tragic action is bound by the constant tension between a self and superhuman forces."

Rivier concedes that these superhuman forces are the primary source of the tragic dimension present in the drama...this force is experienced both internally and externally and thus, the notion that an individual has valid personal autonomy is not entirely accurate.

B) wonders whether or not the protagonist acknowledges the role of the deities in their life. Lesky would state yes, Agamemnon clearly understands through the messages presented by Artemis, that the only way to acquire the winds to blow his ships into battle would be to sacrifice his daughter. Rivier, on the other hand, would argue that the protagonist does not understand the superhuman forces at work...the decision one makes is ultimately the work of an external divine imposition. Does the protagonist understand this?

C) wonders whether or not the protagonist's desires have relevance to the outcome of the drama. I believe that Lesky would state that yes, Agamemnon can make the decision to either fulfill his desire to wage battle, or fulfill his desire to remain a father to his child. River might concede that there is no such relevance...the path has already been dictated and chosen.

I originally went with B, but BR'd C...some further explanation could help.

Thanks in advance...

[ohthatpatrick]

Thanks for bringing this one to the forum!

I think you'd have an easier time with the answer choices if you forced yourself to have a tighter pre-phrase.

It seems like you outlined what each dude said, but we need to just say one thing: how do they differ?

(it's certainly not easy to see that immediately, but I'm suggesting that we should spend more of our time re-reading the two positions for the disconnect between them, and then we'll need less for the answers).

It helps me to consult the three main positions in the passage:
1. Protagonist makes tough choice after intense personal debate. The choice is "free".

2. Gods are involved in forming the tough choice. Protagonist never makes a "free" choice. It is a "necessity imposed by the deities that generates the decision".

3. Gods are involved in forming the tough choice. Protagonist DOES make free choice ... even though he selects one of the options provided by the Gods, he does so on the basis of HIS desires.

If they had asked us what's the same about Lesky and Rivier, I would have said "they both think that Gods are involved in creating the tough choice".

When they ask what's different, I would say "how the protagonist MAKES the choice". Rivier thinks that Gods make the choice for him. Lesky thinks that the protagonist chooses on the basis of his own desires.

So my pre-phrase is, "whether Gods force a decision or whether protagonist makes a decision based on his own desires".

(A) it's about how the decision is made, not the consequences.

(B) this is what Lesky and Rivier have in COMMON.

(C) this is close to "whether the protagonist makes his decision based on his own desires"

(D) this is somewhat tempting. Rivier says that gods force the choice, so we probably wouldn't morally evaluate the character based on the gods. But Lesky says we would morally evaluate the character "condemned by us on the basis of desires that are his own". So Lesky ALSO isn't saying to morally evaluate based on the gods' actions.

(E) neither scholar is trying to compare the morality of the human to that of the deities

Hope this helps