“Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly to heaven” (Shakespeare). This “curse” is the trend of tragedy that arises as ignorance prevails. The effects of tragedy are derived from this lack of understanding whether the intentions be righteous or malevolent. To defeat ignorance, the adversary being knowledge, must first be introduced. When ignorance is victorious, catastrophe occurs. The struggle for power between the two is prevalent In Shakespeare’s tragedy, Romeo and Juliet. In Shakespeare’s tragedy, Romeo and Juliet, the sympathy and ignorance of Friar Lawrence, although his intentions were pure, interfered with his resulting judgement that spiraled both households into unimaginable sorrow and regret. Friar Laurence is undoubtedly responsible for the resulting effects as he was purposefully ignorant to his better judgement.
…show more content…
He even shadowed the many possibilities of grief as he spoke the words, “These violent delights have violent ends/And in their triump die like fire and powder/Which, as they kiss, consume./The sweetest honey/Is loathsome in his own deliciousness/And in the taste confounds the appetite/Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so./Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow” (II. vi. 9-15). Friar Laurence acknowledges the severity of the situation yet he still continues to construct a perfect opportunity for destruction. To better illustrate the argument Gideon Rosen writes, “Ed is walking through the woods and inadvertently trespasses on your land. He has no right to be there, so what he is doing is wrong. Of course, he doesn’t know that he’s trespassing, so he can’t be blamed for knowingly violating your property rights. But there is still a question about whether he’s culpable simply for trespass, which is wrong (I suppose) whether done knowingly or not. And that question turns on whether Ed is culpable for his failure to know that the land was privately owned. If the property line was well marked, and Ed was reckless or negligent in failing to notice the signs, then he is culpable for his ignorance and hence for his trespass. On the other hand, if Ed has been careful to watch for signs but has somehow missed them nonetheless, then his ignorance is non-culpable and so is his act.” In the scenario Laurence is able to identify the surrounding deterrents, but instead of avoiding conflict, he pilots it. Laurence disregarding logic rather than impulse reveals how truly ignorant he can be. Friar Laurence demonstrates his extreme foolishness when he trusts in fate rather than his wisdom. …show more content…
Laurence displays his apprehension when he speaks the words, “So smile the heavens upon this holy act/That after-hours with sorrow chide us not” (I.ii.1-3). To need recognition and acceptance from a divine being heavily emphasizes Laurence’s uncertainty. Not only is he placing his faith into destiny rather than himself, but he knows the possible misery that could emerge. Daniel Kahneman once said, “There are some conditions where you have to trust your intuition. When you are under time pressure for a decision, you need to follow intuition.” Laurence had the choice to trust his intuition. He could have intervened in their plans and provided wisdom and knowledge to persuade them otherwise of their inevitable decision to be together, but he assisted them in their endeavors instead. The oddity of this action is a result from moral ignorance and the avoidance of instinct. Abandoning his instinct is what truly makes him foolish. Although Friar Laurence ignited an inevitable trend of tragedy, he managed to pull through
He even shadowed the many possibilities of grief as he spoke the words, “These violent delights have violent ends/And in their triump die like fire and powder/Which, as they kiss, consume./The sweetest honey/Is loathsome in his own deliciousness/And in the taste confounds the appetite/Therefore love moderately. Long love doth so./Too swift arrives as tardy as too slow” (II. vi. 9-15). Friar Laurence acknowledges the severity of the situation yet he still continues to construct a perfect opportunity for destruction. To better illustrate the argument Gideon Rosen writes, “Ed is walking through the woods and inadvertently trespasses on your land. He has no right to be there, so what he is doing is wrong. Of course, he doesn’t know that he’s trespassing, so he can’t be blamed for knowingly violating your property rights. But there is still a question about whether he’s culpable simply for trespass, which is wrong (I suppose) whether done knowingly or not. And that question turns on whether Ed is culpable for his failure to know that the land was privately owned. If the property line was well marked, and Ed was reckless or negligent in failing to notice the signs, then he is culpable for his ignorance and hence for his trespass. On the other hand, if Ed has been careful to watch for signs but has somehow missed them nonetheless, then his ignorance is non-culpable and so is his act.” In the scenario Laurence is able to identify the surrounding deterrents, but instead of avoiding conflict, he pilots it. Laurence disregarding logic rather than impulse reveals how truly ignorant he can be. Friar Laurence demonstrates his extreme foolishness when he trusts in fate rather than his wisdom. …show more content…
Laurence displays his apprehension when he speaks the words, “So smile the heavens upon this holy act/That after-hours with sorrow chide us not” (I.ii.1-3). To need recognition and acceptance from a divine being heavily emphasizes Laurence’s uncertainty. Not only is he placing his faith into destiny rather than himself, but he knows the possible misery that could emerge. Daniel Kahneman once said, “There are some conditions where you have to trust your intuition. When you are under time pressure for a decision, you need to follow intuition.” Laurence had the choice to trust his intuition. He could have intervened in their plans and provided wisdom and knowledge to persuade them otherwise of their inevitable decision to be together, but he assisted them in their endeavors instead. The oddity of this action is a result from moral ignorance and the avoidance of instinct. Abandoning his instinct is what truly makes him foolish. Although Friar Laurence ignited an inevitable trend of tragedy, he managed to pull through