Penelope Mackie and Centre for Theology, Philosophy, and Religion joint research seminar - 20th November

Location
Humanities A01
Date(s)
Wednesday 20th November 2024 (15:00-17:00)
Contact
mailto:joseph.kisolo-ssonko@nottingham.ac.uk
Description

Join us for our Penelope Mackie and Centre for Theology, Philosophy, and Religion Research joint research seminar of 2024.

The speaker will be Béatrice Han-Pile from the University of Essex.

‘I suffered my deeds more than I acted them’: Hegel on Sophocles’ Oedipus Plays.

Abstract:

I reconfigure Hegel’s distinction between Tat (deed) and Handlung (action) to illuminate Oedipus’ enigmatic formula: ‘I suffered my deeds more than I acted them’. (Oedipus at Colonus ll. 266-67). Most interpreters hold that Oedipus mistook his Tat for a Handlung and wrongly took responsibility for parricide and incest. I argue against the merely causal reading of Tat presupposed by this view that the tragic Tat also has an intentional structure. On the Restrictive Intentionalism about Action (RIA) which underlies Handlung, what counts as my action is only the realisation of a conscious intention, accomplished with reasonable knowledge of the relevant circumstances and foreseeable consequences of realising my intention. On RIA, Oedipus killed the charioteer and married Iocasta: parricide and incest happened to him. By contrast, on the Inclusive Intentionalism about Action (IIA) which underlies the tragic Tat, what counts as my action is everything I bring about in realising a conscious intention, regardless of reasonable expectations about knowledge of the circumstances or foreseeable consequences of realising my intention. On IIA, parricide and incest are part of the ‘whole compass’ of Oedipus’ deeds. I argue that Oedipus is right to take responsibility for his deeds and draw on Tony Honoré’s conception of ‘outcome responsibility’ to characterise the responsibility at stake as blameless liability. Where Oedipus errs is in taking ethical responsibility for his deeds. I show that in Oedipus at Colonus the older Oedipus reverses his position and holds, somewhat surprisingly, that he is innocent and ‘did nothing’. I argue that this reversal presupposes an implicit shift from IIA to RIA, and that this shift helps finally to make sense of Oedipus’ enigmatic formula: Oedipus suffered his deeds (on RIA) more than he acted them (on IIA). I conclude by widening the perspective beyond ancient Greece and engage with Bernard Williams’ interpretation of the same formula.

All are welcome. The seminars will take place Wednesdays at 3pm-5pm in Humanities Building. 

To sign up for our mailing list, please email the seminar convenor, Joseph Kisolo-Ssonko.

Department of Philosophy

University of Nottingham
University Park
Nottingham, NG7 2RD

Contact us
Twitter