Platos Concept of Justice and its Relations to Sophocless Oedipus the King - Research Paper Example

A Critical Analysis of Plato’s Concept of Justice and its Relations to Sophocles’s “Oedipus the King” In the play, “Oedipus the King”, the downfall of Oedipus, Sophocles’s protagonist, is the legacy of his father’s injustice, whereas Shakespeare’s hero Othello’s downfall is self-inflicted. In no way is Oedipus the victim of fate or the Gods, rather Oedipus’s father, King Liaus and the Greek standard of justice and prejudice about the concept of fate – all these are be considered as the underlying factors behind the downfall of the innocent Oedipus. An in-depth analysis of the play will necessarily reveal that Oedipus is more of a victim of his father’s injustice and the social prejudice about fate. It seems that Sophocles has a secret intention to condemn the validity of his society’s belief in fate and oracles. In this regard, Tyler Hiott makes a very interesting comment, “While Oedipus and those around him consider "fate" the source of Oedipus problems, Oedipus decisions show the audience that it is he who is responsible.” (2) Hiott further comments that Sophocles’ intention is to draw the audience’s attention to the “pitfalls of human arrogance through Oedipus fatal flaws” (2). However, here like many other authors Hiot fails to perceive that Sophocles’ portrayal of the role of the people’s belief in the oracle as the root of Oedipus suffering ultimately questions the validity of the oracle as a social institution. Therefore, neither fate nor Gods are the underlying factors of Oedipus’s downfall. In Shakespeare’s play, the protagonist Othello is the victim of his own psychological malady. His suspicion about Desdemona is supposed infidelity, indeed, his psychological insecurities boosted up by his racial status. Even being a man of inferior race Othello’s respectable position in the white society, along with his anxiety and fear of losing it makes him mentally insecure. Such inner insecurity also makes him vulnerable to Iago’s manipulation. Othello, the former black slave, is honored and appreciated by the society -which was supposed to enslave him- due to his martial prowess. In a racially divided society, he reaches the height of great influence and marries the daughter of the senator Brabanzio. Keeping his race aside, he looks forward to being accepted by the society by virtue of his military competence. Yet in the remote corner of his mind, he remains insecure and isolated in the society that he does not belong to racially. It indeed evolves from his own mind. This very isolation of Othello in the society is intensely depicted in his own words in the last scene of the play. While committing suicide, he repeats how he killed a Turk in a battle: “Set you down this, / And say besides that in Aleppo once, / Where a malignant and a turbaned Turk / Beat a Venetian and traduced the state, / I took by th’ throat the circumcised dog / And smote him thus”. (Shakespeare V.ii.341-354) Indeed by comparing his self-killing with the killing of his enemy, he powerfully articulates the fact that he will forever remain an outcast in the society, as Albert Rolls says in this regard, “Othellos status as a Venetian, according to the tenets of this doctrine of cultural transformation, is a consequence of his living in Venice. But Othello does not remain a Venetian for the entire play” (3). Othello suffers from a sort of inferiority complex, in the depth of his heart, which not only blindfolds him from Desdemona’s chastity and purity, but also keeps him preoccupied with the fear of being abandoned by her. Here Desdemona can be interpreted as the symbol, representing his passion and position in the society. His suspicion for the society as well as his fear of being abandoned by his wife throws him on the verge of insanity. His high social status in a racially segregated society rather fuels both his pride and fear. Despite his deep love for Desdemona, he cannot believe that his wife that paragon of virtue and purity, could have settled for him. Such a man’s devotion to his wife is essentially ensued by his incessant fear of being abandoned and deceived. Iago handles this very psychological weakness of Othello. In fact, in the play Iago’s manipulation is not the primary but the crucial reason of Othello’s insanity. Referring to Iago’s role, Maureen Rousseau comments, “Although it seems clear that the villain Iago is the cause for Othellos radical personality change, it is really Othello that changes himself, Iago is simply a catalyst to this action” (1). He works as a trigger that intrigues Othello’s psychological weakness. He plays on the protagonist’s insecurities and “trigger off an engulfing suspicion and jealousy of his wifes supposed infidelity, which culminates in him murdering her” (Hamlin 34). Whereas the psychological imperfections lie in Othello’s circumstance-driven psychic mould, Iago has successfully played it on. However, Othello’s composed and reputable manners have a tendency to camouflage his psychological weakness and flaws. An in-depth analysis of Othello’s honorable, and manner will rather expose the fact that Shakespeare’s protagonist belongs to a realm where excessive idealism and self-restrain seriously affect his capability to distinguish the rumor from reality. In this sense, Othello appears to be imprisoned within himself and within a world where he is infected with a type of inertia. Indeed this inertia starts Othello’s tragic downfall. This inability to act and to face the truth is evident in his willingness to keep faith in Desdemona’s chastity and not to inquire into rumored infidelity: “If she be false, O then Heaven mocks itself, / Ill not believe it” (Shakespeare II.iii.62-63) Othello, the Moor General, is as proud and honorable as a typical general of the society. Yet he is the people’s creation and he endeavors to be what his people expect him. Therefore, Othello the former slave remains a slave in head. He is imprisoned by an ideal caricature of himself. This imprisonment grows him insolent more and more to the insecure possibilities and future induced by the supposed infidelity of his wife. Rather than being fortified by his freewill love for Desdemona, he becomes more vulnerable to the fears and insecurities built-in his nature. Therefore, he himself brings about his own downfall. Indeed, like Othello, Oedipus’s downfall is also self-inflicted to some extent, though much of the downfall is caused by the legacy of his father’s injustice. A king, who has been sentenced to death by his own father because of an immaterialized crime, is certainly the victim of injustice. At the heart of this injustice lies a prophecy about the child’s future murder of his father. Oedipus’s sin is one that did not occurred by the time he had been penalized. Even his crime of patricide is unintentional; rather it is his right to kill someone in order to save his life. His killing of King Liaus is an act of saving himself. In addition, he marries his mother unknowingly. The ultimate horror of Oedipus’s downfall begins when he refuses to obey Tiresias’s advice not to inquire into the matter. He adamantly refuses to interpret the hints about his unintentional sins in Tiresias’s speech. His obstinacy to dig up the truth is fueled by his sense of honor. When Tiresias hints that Oedipus himself is the sinner, he becomes offended and attempts to inquire into the matter adamantly. Tiresias once attempts to hint that because Oedipus himself is a sinner, therefore, his knowledge about the cause of the plague in the kingdom, will not do anything good to him (‘knower’): “How terrible to know / when it does not help the knower; for knowing this / well I let it slip—I should not have come here”. (Line 334-336) Yet Oedipus fails to perceive Tiresias’s message and remains in the same darkness. At this point, the audience begins to feel the horror thinking what would happen to Oedipus, a man so honest and good at heart, so devoted to the welfare of the city and so obstinate to find out the truth, if he learns that he himself is the cause of his people’s suffering. Whereas his father King Liaus’s injustice paves the way for the sins to encroach into his life, Oedipus’s disposition and character are responsible for bringing about the horror of truth. Referring to Oedipus’s role in his downfall Tyler Hiott says, “Oedipus is presented with a series of choices throughout the play, and his arrogant and stubborn nature push him to impulsively make the wrong decisions, the decisions that ultimately lead him to his downfall” (3). On the surface level, Oedipus appears to be a poor victim of the Gods’ will. The Gods seem to play maliciously with him by throwing him into eternal misery. The noble king’s decent intention to save his people from the plague becomes futile at his fate’s cruel interference. In the second half of the play, he is found guilty of committing two crimes, though unintentionally, in his past. Since the concept of justice in Sophocles’ society emphasizes on the act of crime, not on the motif, Oedipus has been held guilty. However, indeed Oedipus is not the victim of the Gods; rather he is the victim of his father’s injustice and partly his own obstinate character. Believing in the oracle that Oedipus, one day, will kill his father, King Liaus commits the injustice to his child, Oedipus, for his immaterialized crime. This injustice further spans the miseries in Oedipus’s life. The two crimes, incest and patricide, which Oedipus commits in his exile were, in the first place, unintentional. Again, Oedipus’s nobility is sufficient to falsify his belief in fate. King Oedipus is noble because he has been nurtured so. If King Liaus did not order to kill the baby Oedipus, and if he cultivated him with proper education and culture, he could easily falsify the oracle. Instead of performing his duty of a father, he orders to kill Oedipus for his immaterialized crime, and King Oedipus has to suffer the consequences of his father’s crime and injustice. Therefore, man may be driven by fate; but believing in the oracle about one’s future or fate is a crime. Works Cited Hamlin, William M. Tragedy and Scepticism in Shakespeares England. NY: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. Hiott, Tyler. “Fate vs. Free Will in Sophocles Oedipus Rex: the Ambiguity of Fate”, 24 April, 2012. Available at Rolls, Albert. “Othello and the Body in Transformation”, 24 April, 2012. Available at Rousseau, Maureen. “Othellos Dramatic Transition: Acts Three and Four”, 24 April, 2012. Available at Shakespeare, William. Othello. New York: Della Classics, 1993 Sophocles. Oedipus the King. New York: Penguin. 2001 Read More