Forgive

Forgiveness loses its pure or true meaning when subjected to any condition or order. Because, in the case of irreparability, conditional forgiveness appears impossible. That's why Derrida's form of forgiveness-Jankelevitch's form of "impossible test" against the thought of conditional forgiveness. At Far Farbie Seller is creating such an exam scene by turning uncertainty into a strong language. It is important for the story to follow Arthur Miller's Death of the Dealer with other contexts. The tragic is a conflict of values, both social criticism and a fragile relationship between two people. The metaphor of "homelessness", which is happening at the end of Filmin, is the most important element of thinking about tragedy together with moral problems in this point where it is impossible to remember Adorno, who says "house is no longer possible". It takes place on a heavy and hard confrontation scene, an impossible forgiveness test. Forgiveness in crime and punishment is a matter of law. Forgiveness or forgiveness, however, can not easily be seen as law. Jankelevitch, Levinas, Arendt, Derrida, Ricoeur, Agamben's inquiries. The concepts of "irreversibility", "invalidity of time-out" and "indispensable" all point to a hierarchy where we can not justify forgiveness. Even from Derrida it is necessary to talk about the fact that forgiveness is a stranger in adulthood. Forgiveness loses its true meaning as long as it is conditional with forgetting, penance, healing, sinning, reconciliation and salvation. Forgiveness is not possible, it does not exist as an opportunity, but there is "forgiveness of the unforgivable". This is the reason for the incompatibility between crime and forgiveness; "Pure forgiveness" is precisely because of inequality and mutuality. Donate as a donation that is impossible to cover. But here, too, the blame is not forgotten. The forgiveness of Derrida's "impossible forgiveness" Ricoeur for "hard forgiveness" occurs at the point of crisis in relation to the norm - in Derrida's so-called "exception to the law of possibility". Forgiveness is not an ordinary possibility but an impossible exception. The final film that Filmin goes through in an uncanny stream is the scene of such an "impossible test". Criminal grievance can not be compensated, but irreversibility must be overcome. Ashgar Farhadi transforms this test into a stage of strong, strong confrontation for the audience. He is also incorporating the test by annoying something very deep and not recognizing the opportunity to miss his eyes. Forgiveness in the face of vengeance and ambition. However, the stage does not have very clear or relaxing meanings in either direction. What would have happened if the criminal had not been an elderly man there, and was not at a point of forgiveness and loneliness in his loneliness? The paradoxical nature of the forgiveness is that it is about forgiving the guilty, or forgiving the guilty more than punishing the guilty. Like we can not forgive someone else, we can not punish someone else. Emad's "I will not owe you, I will close my account" seems both humane, and it brings to our minds what is borrowed. In the scene Emad and Rana face forgiveness with revenge, a small referral to Bergman's Shame film is aggravating the problem. The uneasiness that we are getting into and deepened by ourselves deepens is because we sense that the answers are valid but not the problem. The seller's death, with its backward weight, stops the debt problem. We come to Jankelevitch, who is constantly on the agenda in debates about forgiveness: forgiveness is as strong as evil, evil is as powerful as forgiveness. The crack in the glass does not stop the woman and the man, but it turns into a distinction that we are aware of but do not fully understand.