Fehlhandlung (hamartia) als Ursache des Unglücks in der Tragödientheorie bei Aristoteles

Abstract

Like the interpretation of catharsis in the tragedy theory, studies on hamartia have also been performed with the dichotomous prospect (cognitive perspective and moral perspective) for many years. Naturally, unhappiness can be caused by human errors caused by either cognitive impairments (a simple error of decision, ignorance, missing a target, failing to achieve a purpose, the limits of reason, experiencing unavoidable critical situation, etc.) and characteristic impairments (e.g. irresolution or being prone to anger) or moral impairments. As an element that forms the backbone of ‘The Most Excellent Tragedy’ described in the book containing his tragedy theory under the purposive thought Aristotle pursued, at least hamartia should be understood in a new horizon that encompasses the two horizons and goes beyond these horizons on the basis of his epistemology. This is a part that can be also found in new interpretations from the recent integrated and aesthetic perspectives on catharsis. The audience watching a tragedy sensitively accepts (with pity and fear) the tragic situation the protagonist is faced with on the stage and comes to witness a great misfortune (wrong action of imagination in the protagonist’s emotions leads him to a wrong act, and that hamartia causes the great misfortune). Thanks to that, the audience comes to receive training in the expression of right imagination in a natural way through the awakening of the right imagination in the emotions themselves, not through any teaching or lesson. Role of imagination (phantasia) in Aristotle’s epistemology, especially in the process from perception (aisthesis) to act (praxis) indicates, where tragic fault (hamartia) shown in Aristotle’s tragedy theory starts from. The protagonist of a tragedy comes to like or dislike (or have other emotions) the situation or object he is faced with and reaches a decision (kritikon) that will convert the emotions into act (prattein) by a kind of desire (orexis) at the same time, and comes to take act (prattein) according to the decision (kritikon). At this moment, the emotions as the basis of decision (kritikon) in the process of converting the emotions into acting (prattein) according to the perception (aisthesis) included already the rational (nous) and logic (logos) element. That is because in the acting feeling is already the rational (nous) element (kritikon) together necessarily, when he has perception (aisthesis) of an object and determines the prattein (the result of aisthesis). Therefore, according to Aristotle there is nothing that distinguishes nousness from non-nousness between human’s emotions and acting. Tragedy is an imitation of human acting and shows how a particular human acting causes an unpleasant situation. If an emotion is supposed to act necessarily in the stage perception (aisthesis), an indissoluble premise at the point human acting happens, the cause of human acting causing unhappiness is the action of the wrong imagination (phantasia) in the very emotions. This should be the essence of hamartia that Aristotle meant to show in his tragedy theory. Would it be possible to apply Aristotle’s hamartia theory to all the existing Grecian tragic works? That is another question. Furthermore, this questions remains: How much are the unpleasant and terrible events, depicted in the works that are considered to be the greatest (e.g. King Oedipus), related to hamartia described by Aristotle?