Which is more tragic, the death of an individualist for a collective cause or the death of a collectivist for an individual cause?
Also, who is more worthwhile, the dedicated individualist or the dedicated collectivist?
>>8147768
>the death of a collectivist for an individual cause
Do you mean the death of an entire collective or just a single collectivist?
>>8147775
A collectivist, just one person.
>>8147768
>>8147802
Fuck collectivists, at least individualists value their own lives.
a revolutionary getting shot over a girl or something isn't tragic
>>8147768
That isn't how tragedy works.
>>8147768
The individualist (and I'm not just saying that because everything is a spook) dying for the collective cause is more tragic because it can go a couple of ways. The most prominent are these two:
>the individualist rejects his own needs in favor of the collective's, becoming a collectivist and dying
>the individualist is forced to die for the collective's cause
An individualist values his own life and thoughts, whereas a collectivist does not. When a collectivist dies for an individualist's cause, it is more in tune with the collectivist's nature than vice versa.
>>8147982
All of this is based on an apprehensive tone towards collectivism.
If the individualist dies as a threat to a true utopian society, it isn't tragic. If a hero or a leader of a collective is killed right before he can reach his goal of uniting the people, flinging them back into chaos, that is tragic.
But all of this doesn't matter, since there is way more to tragedy than the protagonists character.
>>8147999
What of the artists whose lives where ruined during the communist uprising in Russia? Is it not tragic that individualists are mowed over by the machinations of the collective?
>>8148017
Didn't say it couldn't be tragic.
But I'd argue that those artists spoke to a more universal/collective calling than Communism.
What of all the human rights activists, who were struck down by "rogue individuals"?
And what of Cesar? Was his death tragic?
>>8147999
My comment was based on dying for the cause, not as an adversary to the cause. For example, the individualist's cause and the collective's cause are not in immediate opposition, nor are they entirely neutral to one another.
Your comment is based on each figure dying in opposition to the cause, which truth to be told I hadn't considered.
OP's question could've been worded a bit better.
>>8147768
"ism"s apply loosely to anything and directly to nothing and are the worst part of modern education.
>>8148087
I would almost argue that the hero of a cause being killed by a cause which he does not conflict with, but views him as a threat, would probably be the most tragic. At least in an intuitive sense.
In a literary sense, it would probably be the hero (and his cause) are killed for no other reason than necessity or fate.
But then again all of this is obviously heavily influenced by our Graeco-Roman understanding of the classical tragedy.
Even though similar themes can be found all over the world, where hero legends are being spun. Siegfried i.e. probably being the easiest to compare.
>>8148130
I don't want to get involved in a discussion over fate today (flashbacks to high school english) but I agree that the most tragic is the first death you mentioned.
The hero being killed by a cause he doesn't conflict with is definitely the most tragic, because there's almost a sense of dramatic irony in being killed by something that you didn't take for a threat, especially if the reader can see the danger.
>>8148160
Especially if the hero is not truly a threat to the other cause or rather the people of the cause.
Say a traveling doctor struck down by a religious village, which believes their values to be more important than the relief the doctor brings.
Reading that example, I should probably cut down on the German /lit/...
>>8148044
>And what of Cesar? Was his death tragic?
Yes. But Alexander's also
