each time when we come to a crossroad where an important decision has to be made, and at that very moment after much deliberation, we do what we thought was best for the situation; it could be best for you, for someone else, or in general, for 'the greater good'. or so you thought. what tragedy seems to us is a kind of unavoidable catastrophe, one that we did not and could not foresee. be it the consequences of nature's force or man-made decisions, there is no way we would know what we could have done to prevent it until it happened - we make our decisions based on the consequences of others' decision. but the main point of looking at tragedy is not to focus on our helplessness, but rather what we can learn from the course of it; it helps us to reflect upon ourselves, in particular, while dealing with the past.

As spectators of tragic plays or stories, we are able to have this wholesome view of the misfortunes. this proximity between the story played out in front of us makes it less confronting about ourselves, that enables us to be detached yet participating at the same time. take for example, romeo and juliet, whose love story we consider a tragedy. as we go along with the plot of their story, we start to realise that there could be many other possibilities that might have lead to many other endings. but what happened happened as it did. even if they seeked out the other possibilities, can they guarantee a happy ending? i reckon not necessary. what i want to highlight to you here is that they did what they each thought was right, that they were adhering to their beliefs, morals and values. bear in mind that i mentioned before that what may seem right to me, may not be to you. this limitation in our own understanding of others, especially their predicaments, restricts our eudaimonistic judgment of their sufferings. the moral ambiguity and complex in this complex brings us to the point that we cannot exactly issue the blame on any particular one person.

However when tragedy happens, we feel this sense of injustice arising in ourselves because we liken the innocents as undeserving of the suffering (if we even care enough). It is an inherent trait of man to desire power and dominance over his own life, therefore it appears difficult to swallow that some things are beyond his control. And if we believe in this normal mode of justice, we seek to be redressed in times of suffering - we want answers, we need to know who is responsible for our pain. Justice then embarks on this process of addressing blame to someone, even if they are not man-made tragedies, the disadvantaged usually become the targets susceptible to scapegoating. (We can use the Sichuan earthquake for example, seriously, who can you really blame in times of natural disaster? If it weren't for the earthquake, would the government still be blamed for poor maintenance?) Obviously, this demand is out of proportion to the extends of justice.

Back to the question of how we deal with the past, instantly we talk about reconciliation that entails raking up past (painful) memories and attempting to resolve them. Definitely, it takes more than that. But for a start, the symbolic act of accepting responsibility as part of redemption, admitting your mistakes (even if they are unforseen but the fact that you made the decisions that resulted in the tragic consequences) would mean a lot to the sufferers. Relating this back to ourselves, sometimes we make decisions that we thought was right and it turns out to be series of dramatic events, we still have to be responsible for them (whether we like it or not). Tragedy teaches responsibility and compassion; it trains our eudaimonistic judgment and widens our perspective.



that's all folks. the end of tragedy.