The Innocence of Oedipus: The Philosophers on Oedipus the King - Research Paper Example

? Oedipus the King Number Number Teacher’s Due Oedipus the King Oedipus the King is one of the most famous plays in the history of literature. It was written by Sophocles and is part of the great literature that was passed down by the Greeks. The importance of this play can be seen from the significance that it was given by Aristotle, one of the earliest literary critics in history. The story forms, chronologically, the first part of the Theban plays. The character of Oedipus has been used by thinkers like Sigmund Freud to explain theories of psychoanalysis as well. The importance of the character of Oedipus can thus, not be underestimated. The play deals with issues of free will and determinism. The debates regarding the play often are those that argue whether the fate of Oedipus is due to his fate or due to his own character. This forms a part of the debate regarding free will and determinism and thus gives a non-Christian aspect to the entire debate. Oedipus, the King of Thebes, during the course of the play, realizes that he had killed his own father and married his own mother. The character of Oedipus had already fathered children with his own mother by the time he gets to know about his history. The reason as to why he gets to know this is because of the oracle at Delphi. This is the same oracle that had informed him of his fate earlier. It is to escape this fate that he runs away from whom he considered to be his parents- Polybus and Merope. His flight from Corinth, however, does not ensure his safety from his fate. Ironically, this only brings him closer to what was destined to happen for him and he runs into his own fate. This paper shall seek to analyze how the ultimate fate that Oedipus meets with is an effect of the actions that he takes and the actions of fate. It shall look at the play and specifically at those instances where Oedipus is adamant about having control over his fate. To say that the end of the play-Oedipus blinding himself as he learns of his incest and patricide- is the result of only the fate of Oedipus would be an incomplete analysis of the play. This would leave out the complexities of the debate between free will and determinism that Sophocles seeks to bring into the play. Thomas Gould talks of how critics like Aristotle term the play an example of the perfect tragedy. This means that the play portrays a protagonist who is unable to come to terms with his own reality and the reality of the society (Gould, 364). The tragedy of the protagonist is the result of the combination of the action of the fates and the flaw that is present in the character of the protagonist. This flaw in the character of the protagonist is the main reason for the downfall of the character, coupled with his or her fate. Oedipus’ flaw, reckless action coupled with exceptional insight and intelligence enable him to become the king of Thebes. He is thus exalted to a high position as a result of his flaw. However, these traits of his cause him to chase his fate and travel from Corinth to Thebes. It also provokes him to murder his own father at a crossroads. Oedipus’ fate, thus, is not one that was completely fixed and unchangeable but one that seems to conspire with his own flaws. One may also look at the analyses that the common readers and viewers of the play have made in the past. To understand this better, it would be a fruitful exercise to look at the essay “Paedagogus” by Bob Blaisdell. Blaisdell describes the scene of a classroom where he taught the play to a group of students. As he recounts his experience, he says that most of the students seemed to think that the play talked about the general condition of man. What was interesting, however, is the fact that most of them thought that the personality and the traits of it had a great effect on the eventual outcome of the actions of man as it is described in Oedipus (Blaisdell, 45). This effect has been produced by the play on many a critic and it is mostly taken to be a proof of how the fate of man is contingent not only on supernatural forces but also on the agency of man. Where a belief in such agency is taken to a perverse level, it seems to produce perverse results, according to the play. It is Oedipus’ single-mindedness to evade his fate that ironically, leads him to his fate. In an alternative to the narrative of the play, one may think of the possibility where Oedipus would have stayed on in Corinth without anything special happening. This would have happened if he had ignored the warnings off fate that he had got. However, his insistence on his omnipotence ruins his life. If one looks at the larger picture, one may be able to understand the greater workings of fate in the play. Laius and Jocasta, aware of their destiny, are unable to avert the disaster. One is murdered by his own son and the other bears her own son’s children. The characters of the play are thus, puppets in the hands of fate. However, in their efforts to avert the disaster, every party ends up helping the prophecy to fulfil itself. The combined effects of fate and the agency of the characters of the play are enough to create the disaster of the play. Some critics argue that the climactic disaster in the play is the result of only the actions of Oedipus and the other characters in the play and not the workings of fate. They argue that if Oedipus had not gone on questioning the shepherd who had taken him to Corinth, he would be spared the fate that he brings on himself. However, the tragedy of Oedipus is not merely the fact that he blinded himself. To think of the play in that manner would be to reduce the philosophical complexity of the play. The tragedy of the play lies in the patricide and incest that is committed by Oedipus. That is his fate; the fate that he attempts to run away from when he flees the city of Corinth. The blinding of Oedipus and the suicide of Jocasta are merely the consequences of the tragic revelation, which in the case of Oedipus the King, occurs before the characters attain their tragic knowledge. Their actions and the flaws in their personalities, thus, only help to hasten the inexorable fulfilment of their destinies. In reply to the above argument, one may say that the play also reveals the workings of human agency in defying convention. The play does so in a very convoluted fashion. By showing that Oedipus attempts to maintain the conventional order of things, Sophocles places him in the position of the custodian of conventions. This is however, exactly how Oedipus comes to harm the people that he loves the most. In his mindless need to assert the superiority of convention, he ends up subverting it himself. However, as Peter J. Ahrensdorf puts it, “Sophocles clearly affirms the superior wisdom and humanity of the individual life guided by reason” (Ahrensdorf, 773). The importance of reason thus, for Sophocles, lies in the combination of tradition and reason and this may provide the reader and the viewer with a reason as to why the protagonist of the play attains is a combination of the both. In a manner that is analogous to this, the climax of the play is a combination of fate and the reason of the person who guides most of the action of the play. The modern ideas of determinism make one think of the oracles as representatives of fate that are all-encompassing and omnipotent. This is, however, a wrong interpretation of Oedipus the King. The ancient Greeks’ conception of fate was very different from the modern conceptions of it. They looked at fate as nothing but an outcome that would be the result of many choices that were made by the protagonist. The choices that the protagonist made in this context would be entirely the result of the free will of the protagonist. Oedipus is thus, not just a puppet who dances to the tunes of fate. He exercises his free will in choosing to leave Corinth and stay in Thebes. These actions of his are not inspired by a knowledge of their consequences; they are nevertheless the products of his own free will. The ultimate results of his actions are the consequences of these actions. If one traces the events in the play through a chain of causality, one would be able to ascribe a part of the blame to the actions that Oedipus performs out of his own free will. It is only the rest of the blame for the disaster that a viewer familiar with the customs and ideas of the Greeks would ascribe to fate and its machinations. Tiresias speaks of the predicament of man in normal times when he says- "How terrible-to see the truth when the truth is only pain to him who sees!” (360). This sums up the spirit of the play and the notions of fate that were held during this age. Oedipus the King is a play that as stood the test of time and has enthralled centuries of viewers in various forms and versions. The timelessness of the themes that the play discusses can also be seen in the validity of the debates that it initiates. The issues of free will and determinism that it discusses are issues that are still debated in theological and academic circles. The importance of these issues lies also in the adaptations that have been made of the play in modern times. Bernard Knox talks of how even in modern times, this play has been adapted to the stage of different countries. He ascribes this to the appeal of the play that provides room for several interpretations (Knox, 203). Such interpretations are the result of the ambiguity that the playwright introduces to the actions of the protagonist. The audience is made a witness to actions that lead to the tragedy of Oedipus but is continuously aware of the fact that he is partially responsible for the actions that he performs. As a result of this, a tension is introduced in the play that the viewer finds gripping, to this date. The fact that the readers and the viewers of the play are able to identify with the protagonist also contributes to the appeal of the play and provides it a place in the canon of great literatures that seek to represent the human condition. Works Cited Ahrensdorf, Peter J. “The Limits of Political Rationalism: Enlightenment and Religion in Oedipus the Tyrant”. The Journal of Politics 66 (3), 2004. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3449741 Accessed on 8th April, 2012. Blaisdell, Bob. “Oedipus, Still the King”. The Classical World 90 (1), 1996. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4351900 Accessed on 8th April, 2012. Gould, Thomas. “The Innocence of Oedipus: The Philosophers on Oedipus the King”. Arion 4 (3), 1965. http://www.jstor.org/stable/20162968 Accessed on 8th April, 2012. Knox, Bernard. “Oedipus Rex”. Grand Street 4 (2), 1985. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25006718 Accessed on 8th April, 2012. Sophocles. “Oedipus the King”. The Theban Plays. New York: Penguin, 1987. Read More