Abstract

Chapter one examines the reasons why tragedy becomes important for philosophy after Kant, and why Greek tragedy and not modern tragedy is the model that German idealists and Romantics look to in order to find tragedy's best expression. An analysis of why the Antigone in particular was important for Hegel in his work concludes the chapter, together with the observation that Hegel's use of Antigone does not consider the total work. ;Chapter two looks at some of the reasons for Euripides' having been the least favorite of the three major Athenian tragedians among philosophers. Among the chief objections is Nietzsche's claim that Euripides engages philosophy at the expense of the "truly tragic." The chapter then shows that Euripides is not espousing philosophy so much as he is proving philosophy's inadequacy at preventing tragedy. The chapter illustrates that philosophy depends on dramatic language and technique to an extent that many philosophers would find unacceptable. Some consequences of this realization are then enumerated, such as Plato's later career being marked by a distrust of language in general and his attempt to articulate a "Reason" that is independent of language and the world. ;Chapter three examines the reasons why Aeschylus would have been a better choice to illustrate Hegel's speculative dialectic than Sophocles is, but also points out reasons why Aeschylus is not compatible with Hegel. An examination of some of Aeschylus' plays reveals that the general worldview of the poet is strikingly similar to Hegel's, but Aeschylus in the end falls short of an embrace of faith in reason, and neither does he share Hegel's contentedness with the Now at the expense of possibility. ;Chapter four contains an overview of what has gone before, and a summing up of the Hegelian "system." The chapter examines several definitions that have been given to tragedy, and concludes that the previous chapters have demonstrated an element of irreducibility in human suffering that renders Greek tragedies characteristically impervious to rational systematization