Category: Free Will

Introduction: The Enduring Debate of Free Will vs. Determinism

The history of philosophy has been dominated by competing arguments around the ideas of Free Will and Determinism. Simply stated, the issue hangs on whether human beings should be thought of as fundamentally free to choose their actions and mould their lives – or whether they should be deemed as being at heart determined by forces beyond their control, be they fate, biology, politics or class. It seems obvious for most of us that we have free will. If we decide to do something and we do that, we could have easily chosen to do something else. Yet, many philosophers believe that this instinct is wrong. One of the major fundamental questions in psychological science and philosophy concerns the presence or absence of free will in the universe, or in any physical system. Are our choices in consciousness really just an illusion or it’s what we really want? Do we really have the ability to control our will or it’s just we do not have any other choices? These questions remains highly controversial and are one of the most famous and major debates in psychology and philosophy and are still arguable. A lot of studies have been conducted to understand this trait. The significance of findings, their meanings, and what conclusions may be drawn from them is a matter of intense debate and will have remarkable implications for understanding the concept of human behavior. Free will is the ability to make a conscious choices at any moment of life, without the interference of any external factors or constraints. When we introduce free will, neuroscience always comes with it in which the topics related to volition and agencies are conduced and analyzed. If free will is really just an illusion fabricated by our brain function and other factors, then things can really turn out to be a way more different than we can ever think of. Supposing, we are not accountable for our own actions but the neurons hitting our brain are, how the jury proceedings or criminal law of a nation can really held a person accountable for something he is not responsible for? With entanglements such as that, the significance of settling this debate is clear. Many researchers and philosophers have already attempted to justify their experiments and have come up with some intellectually satisfying outcomes. In this paper, you will find out some intellectual evidences to understand the human nature concepts and some other external factors responsible for the way we think and how we think. Free will is always influenced by various parameters such as social; factors, our upbringing and the environment we grew up in, which demonstrates that a person can never have his own free will to full extent.

The Illusion of Free Will: Neuroscientific Perspectives

An article in the journal “It’s OK if ‘my brain made me do it’: People’s intuitions about free will and neuro-scientific prediction” explores understanding of the human behavior by making neuro-predictions about the decisions through altering the manipulation levels. According to Nahmias, Shepard, Reuter, neuro-predictions are not the threat to free will as long as it’s not been manipulated by other factors (pg1, 2014). In order to support the argument, an experiment at Georgia State University have been conducted in which two-hundred seventy-eight undergraduates volunteered (Nahmias, Shepard, Reuter, pg3, 2014). A pair of scenarios were created and the ability for perfect prediction by neuroscientist’s was held constant. However, the threat of manipulation was varied in each scenario. A student named Jill volunteered and agreed to wear a Brain scanning cap for a month. Scientist predicted Jill’s decisions even about the voting selection for Governor as well as President based on the data provided by Brain scanner (Nahmias, Shepard, Reuter, pg2, 2014). Other participants were asked to answer a three part questionnaire for each scenario. Nahmias, Shepard and Reuter also specifies that the first block was based on Jill’s Free will and his accountability, followed by the second part that had statements about Jill’s Free will in general and third section includes questions of second part but with the manipulation of existence of technology (pg3, 2014). Later, the results evaluated relatively small difference between the actions that could not be manipulated and that could have been altered but left unchanged. Free will attributes were recorded to reach its peak in the absence of manipulation. However, with escalation in manipulation level, the attributes of Free will started declining while lighting up different approaches responsible to influence human behavior.

External Influences on Behavior: Beyond Individual Control

There are some other factors that possess much control to alter the ways we behave. The circumstances in which an event is occurring can have a huge impact on volitional control (Belopolsky, Awh, pg1, 2015). A lot of studies have been conducted in the past by various researchers to demonstrate this trait. A study similar to the experiment conducted by Theeuwes and Van der Burg (2007), but with some new conditions including the distracting color strength controller in color singleton was introduced to the participants. Participants were given a target colored word cue and the study was divides into two parts – one had homogenously grouped target color distractors while other had different colored arrays (Belopolsky, Awh, pg2, 2015). After several trails, it was found that people choices were affected by the context in which the experiment is conducted (Belopolsky, Awh, pg10, 2015). Some other scholars also have a similar perception about other features affecting our behavior.

The Role of Genetics and Environment in Shaping Free Will

The type of behavior in which we will participate hugely depends upon the genetic factors as well as our surroundings. Human genetic origins alter the behavior attributes of a person, such as- it is much more difficult for a person to speak publicly who is genetically susceptible to shyness than a person without those genes (Brock, Buchanan, pg8, 1999). Sometime, people lose their faith in their ability to overcome their introvert or aggressive behavior adapted due to genetics rather than to acknowledge that it was meant to be a way more difficult for them as compared to others (Brock, Buchanan, pg8, 1999). The concept of the effects of genetics on our mind and actions should not be resembled with the attributes of accountability as human moral responsibilities cannot be mistaken for the sake of genes or environment (Brock, Buchanan, pg17, 1999). External pressures such as social constraints have also been believed to diminish the complete presence of volition in our decisions.

The Unpredictability of Human Actions and the Myth of Free Will

Human actions are non-predictable in reality, one cannot completely rely on the previous data to predict the future. According to Alquist, Ainsworth and Baumeister, people have the tendency to behave in such a manner that they can never think of, due to presence of certain beliefs, in spite of knowing the truth behind that belief (pg1, 2013). In one of the studies demonstrated about the conformity, participants were exposed to three difference circumstances and the results evaluated the strength of human control on our actions. Candidates were exposed to some biased and unbiased Free will statements (Alquist, Ainsworth, Baumeister, pg3, 2013). When people are given anti Free will assertions and asked to justify their answer if they allege the statement, to the surprise, it was recorded that people tend to conform more than the ones exposed to the statements in the favor of volition, even after knowing that they are wrong (Alquist ,Ainsworth, Baumeister, pg3, 2013). This occurred due to the laziness and the need of effort to stand up and justify the opposing answers due to which most people agreed to go along with the group rather than responding in the way they wanted to.

Reevaluating Free Will: The Impact of Unconscious Brain Activity

People often believe that whatever they are doing is their own genuine choice. This belief to proceed with their own decisions is an ordinary thinking that people have about their each other (Bergner, pg2, 2018). However, several conclusions have been made in order to oppose these sorts of counterarguments that indicates the presence of Free will. According to Bergner, various studies have been conducted surveying the decision of hand moving patterns and psychological result of mind in initialization of these movements (pg4, 2018). In one of the studies resembling the presence of Free will, candidates were shown random letters on the screen that kept on changing at fast pace and volunteers were asked to press the button using their index fingers in order to revisualize the letter that was on the screen when they made their choice (Bergner, pg4, 2018). The results recorded illustrated that the patterns of brain activity that the brain had already made its decision even before the candidate was aware of making one (Bergner, pg4, 2018). It depicted that the presence of consciousness actually played no role in our behavior and unconscious human brain were remarked to be the catalyst in this study while directing the research towards the perception of Free will as an illusion.

Conclusion: Free Will as an Illusion Shaped by Multiple Factors

This paper argues that we do not hold the complete accountability of the senses initiated towards the decision making process. Various evidences have been mentioned in this paper that anchors our choices and Free will on opposite ends. Our preferences of the response that we would initiate generally relies upon the stimulus to which we are exposed as well as some other traits. The extent of Free will is not only limited to the choices we make but is way more beyond the fact of living out life with freedom. People are forced to change their perceptions exposing their vulnerability to the manipulative circumstances. Humans thinking abilities are somewhere manifested by our internal as well as external factors. The environment in which an individual grew up, the genes passed on through generations implies to have certain liability of human behavior. Therefore, Free will is just an illusion as we are not the only one to decide our own actions. It seems like we exist and at the same time we don’t.

Free will is the capability of acting out of one’s own judgment. However, the major problem with this is the social, natural, or religious restrictions that inevitably controls humanity. Where freedom is a widespread desire, it has also been proven to portray the worst impulses of those with power. This is confirmed yet again in Anthony Burgess’s dystopian novel A Clockwork Orange. Set in an oppressive state, Alex – a teenager who has a history in crimes – has his self-determination taken by authority figures. Through making Alex the protagonist of the book, Burgess demonstrates the necessity of free will as a core theme through how a loss of will power equates to a robotic society, how the quality of life would inevitably decrease, and through the knowledge that “goodness” is valueless when forced.

One of the key reasons the element of free will is a fundamental feature in mankind is because it differentiates humans from machines. Within the novel, Alex questions an operation called Ludovico’s Technique, which is a psychological behaviour modification that makes a person incapable of performing vile deeds. In response to Alex’s curiosity, the Prison Charlie states that “[g]oodness is something chosen. When a man cannot choose he ceases to be a man” (Burgess 63). As a result of the technique, higher powers strip Alex’s autonomy, making him “a clockwork orange.” This indicates how laws and conditioning can transform a person capable of both good and evil into a mechanical creature. Burgess warns readers that dehumanizing laws that force morals on humans will only make them less human and more programmed.

Anthony Burgess uses A Clockwork Orange to protest against oppressive governments who censor freedom. At the beginning of the novel, the Government ignores crime simply to prevent any threat to his political status. However, the government soon becomes remorseless, determined to maintain power by exploiting all aspects of society. Following the operation, Alex seeks shelter at F. Alexander’s. Unaware of whom he is helping, he pities Alex, expressing that:

I [F. Alexander] think that you [Alex] can help dislodge this overbearing Government. To turn a decent young man into a piece of clockwork should not, surely, be seen as any triumph for any government, save one that boasts of its repressiveness… (Burgess 116)

He believes the government is oppressive and carelessly content with withdrawing individual liberties to achieve what they believe is a better society. However, the problem in this is that law and power in society force morals based solely on the standards they believe are right. Society can not all be forced into a single level of “goodness” if there is no exact concept for it.

Burgess acknowledges several times that good acts performed in the absence of choice are morally valueless and artificially sincere if dictated by fear and not free will. When referring to the treatment Alex will undergo, the Chaplain introduces these same thoughts, commenting that: …[i]t may not be nice to be good, […] It may be horrible to be good. […] What does God want? Does God want goodness or the choice of goodness? Is a man who chooses the bad perhaps in some ways better than a man who has the good imposed upon him? (Burgess 71)

The Prison Chaplain recognizes that Ludovico’s Technique does not make one act out of morality, but simply from physical compulsion. Alex now ceases doing wrong only because he is afraid of physical pain. Moreover, it is equally immoral being totally good as it is being totally vicious. Both must exist alongside each other because without wrong and personal struggle as an option, goodness becomes meaningless. By forcing good morals onto Alex, the Government has eliminated his freedom to choose, which is greater than any sin.

Anthony Burgess’s novel A Clockwork Orange highlights the importance of free will by the arguments that a loss of free will makes an individual mechanical, how the quality of life would become oppressive, and through the knowledge that good acts in the absence of choice are empty. Burgess valued choice over anything and implied that humanity must always have the power to make their own choices, actions, beliefs, and judgements; regardless if it results in immorality. Repression of behaviour causes the destruction of humans as opposed to the rescuing. Therefore, free will is essential to maintain humanity as altering it disrupts the essence of man.

Agent Smith is fictional character and the main antagonist from the sequel “the Matrix”. Smith is contrast energy form of Neo. Smith’s main role is to police defective programs in order to maintain the stability of the system. In the Matrix, Smith states to Morpheus during his interrogation that he despises the Matrix itself, which he labels a “zoo” and plans to escape from it knowing that he is not free anymore, making himself feel that he is more like a prisoner than the people he is tasked to police. He indifferently viewed the entire humanity and later came up with a desire to destruct both interior and exterior existences of the Matrix. but those were suddenly changed after he initially appeared to be destroyed by Neo, the one who is contrasted by Smith. But he returns in the Matrix reloaded with greatly altered abilities and complete liberation as an Exile program in the Matrix itself. He became a free agent by giving his earpiece, which are worn by the agents, to Neo “unplugged”, being no longer part of the system. He began to absorb all the inhabitants of the Matrix including every program functioning inside; he replicates everyone into himself. Thus becoming inevitable.

But why did Mr. Smith reconcile the purpose and free will? according to him, “we’re not here because we’re free. We’re here because we’re not free. There’s no escaping reason. No denying purpose. Because as we both know without purpose, we would not exist. Smith represents determinism because free will is important to the series, it must actually exist. Machines lies and part of the Architect’s plan for controlling free will. in the Matrix, the appearance of determinism is part of the machine’s control. So he doesn’t believe in their own free will. but rather, part of the Matrix is to practice their free will. Smith also shown to be nihilistic, pointing a view that life must have objective, meaning, or purpose in order to exist. His speeches to Neo in The Matrix Revolutions and his revelation that the purpose of all life is ‘to end’ during his final battle with Neo.

Hints of his nihilism were also demonstrated in their meeting in Reloaded, when he implicitly compared the concepts of reason and purpose to an inescapable prison. As a result of being partially overwritten by The One, Smith also begins to exhibit stronger, more virulent human behaviors and emotions such as unpredictability and dry humor, which is a clear departure from his original stern demeanor. He makes the claim that Neo has set him free, indicating that he now has not only the vision but also the ability to break free of the machines’ control and exist as a singular being. He is now allied with no one but himself, rendering him an outlaw to the Matrix, the humans who inhabit it and the rebels of Zion. Even free of Machine control, however, Smith is also compelled to feel that he is still crushed by the weight of purpose. Personally, I believe that all human activity (including mental activity) is determined by prior causes, and that Free Will is an illusion.

It also is possible that there are forces less powerful than determinism that prevent humans from having Free Will. In connection with this, Smith is perplexed as to why Neo fights, after he was beaten up by Mr. Smith, as they both have seen the outcome of the fight. Smith asks Neo why he persists when he knows he will lose: ‘Is it freedom or truth? Perhaps peace? Could it be for love?’, reasons which he believes are ‘temporary constructs of a feeble human intellect trying desperately to justify an existence that is without meaning or purpose, and all of them as artificial as the Matrix itself. Why, Mr. Anderson? Why, why, why do you persist?’ Smith is enraged by Neo’s simple and irrational answer: ‘Because I choose to.’ After Neo won, this had the effect of destroying the Smith inhabiting Neo. With the integral anomoly expressed and destroyed, the systemic anomaly (Smith) was subsequently destroyed as well, with each Smith imploding in a burst of light that illuminated Mega City’s streets, therefore restoring the Matrix from 0% acceptance to 100% acceptance and allowing it to be reset.

Thomas Hardy is among the most well-known proponents of naturalism – the pessimistic belief that human behavior, choices, and ultimately destinies are highly influenced, if not predetermined, by their environment. Naturalism suggests that human customs and societal structure directly emulate those of the natural world, implying that humanity has no control over, and therefore, needs not take responsibility for, its actions. However, Hardy is hardly married to this principle. Naturalism is not the only philosophical basis of his works. In his novel Tess of the D’Urbervilles, author Thomas Hardy contends that humans are not solely victims of fate or nature’s cruelties, but victims of ourselves and our conventions. Our “blighted star” did not destroy Tess; humanity did.

Throughout the novel, Hardy characterizes nature as a force of peace and beauty rather than malice, especially in relation to Tess. She is most at home in nature, often acting as if she is a part of it herself. When Tess is at her happiest, the world around her reflects it, and when nature is at its most scenic, Tess’ mood is consequently elevated. She disappears into nature at several points in the novel, integrating herself almost completely into it. In the aftermath of Tess’ disastrous stay at Tantridge, nature serves as her sanctuary. Tess readily pours herself into fieldwork, “assimilating herself with [her surroundings]” and envelops herself totally in the English countryside (Hardy 88). There she finds refuge from the prying, judgmental eyes of society. Tradition and cultural convention are caustic and ultimately devastating forces in Tess, eventually leading to the “destruction of [the novel’s] heroine” (Shumaker). Nature grants her temporary relief, reviving her natural optimism and innate desire to be good. As Tess travels to Talbothays, Hardy narrates, “ the sense of being among new scenes where there were no insidious eyes upon her […] sent up her spirits wonderfully” (Hardy 103). Tess, craving an escape from the uncompromising, unforgiving culture of 19th century England, is most content in the natural world, free from the constricting bonds of human convention.

Tess’ acute discomfort with her own society stems, in part, from humankind’s rapidly increasing removal from nature. Tess of the D’Urbervilles is set less than a century after the Industrial Revolution, a fact which unmistakably influences the work. Hardy consistently extols the virtues of the pastoral life, demonizing industry and technological advancement. He voices his opinions through various literary devices, including metaphor. In the novel’s second phase, Hardy presents his readers with a particularly gory anecdote in which the wildlife in a wheatfield is cornered by a mechanical reaping machine and ruthlessly beaten to death by its operators (Hardy 87). This passage has two meanings – first and most evidently, it demonstrates humanity’s remorseless, unhesitatingly cruel destruction of the innocence around it, both that of nature and of youth. Throughout the novel, the narration and character dialogue seem to insist that our world is an inherently cold and barbaric place; however, that idea is contradicted consistently by the landscape descriptions widespread throughout phases one, two, and three. This scene implies that our world’s blight is humanity, not the world itself. Secondly, it represents the changing times in 19th century England. In the industrial era, lower-income people often migrated to the cities in hopes of securing a factory job and therefore a steady source of income. However, because of low wages, the high cost of living, and various other factors, people became so severely indebted that they were unable to ever leave. Similarly, as literary scholar Jules Law notes, Hardy tends to “historicize his landscapes and buildings” (Law). The author creates and employs several anachronisms throughout the novel, juxtaposing his changing world with a traditional agricultural one. For example, when Tess and her then-lover Angel bring milk from Talbothays to the nearest train station, she remarks that their cargo will soon reach “‘[s]trange people that [they] have never seen […] [w]ho don’t know anything of [them], [or] where [the milk] comes from,’” some of whom have never even seen a cow (Hardy 187). This scene is a somewhat jarring reminder to the reader that the unpleasant world outside Tess’ safe haven still exists. The farm itself seems entirely unaffected by the rapidly progressing times, creating a stark contrast between the world ruled by man and the world ruled by nature. Hardy contends that, as humanity’s technological prowess grows, our inborn connection to nature begins to dissipate; thus, social law and natural law become increasingly distant. Consequently, our perception of nature has become corrupted, created only through a lense warped by religion, tradition, and cultural convention.

The human perception of nature is inextricably tainted with our own social conventions. In the aftermath of her rape, Tess sees herself and her “unintact” state as something alien and perverted, an ugly red stain on the otherwise pure fabric of nature. She “look[s] upon herself as a figure of guilt intruding into the haunts of [nature’s] innocence” (Hardy 86). She believes herself and her situation to be an affront against the world itself, a violation of not only social law, but natural law. However, as Hardy ironically muses in a separate work, entitled the Mayor of Casterbridge, nature seems to possess a “jaunty readiness to support unorthodox social principles” (Law). Tess, like many in 19th century England, believes social and natural law overlap heavily, however, as the novel proves time and time again, this is largely untrue. Throughout the novel, many characters seem resigned or even apathetic to the terrible situations they find themselves or the people around them in, claiming that it “is nat[ure]” or “what pleases God” (Hardy 82). For example, after Tess escapes her rapist and abuser and returns to Marlott, her parents berate her for not manipulating the situation to benefit herself and her family. Rather than fight against or even simply recognize Alec D’Urberville’s traumatizing violation of their daughter, they deem it an inevitability – the work of “fate”. The Durbeyfields attribute their daughter’s misfortunes to random chance, blatantly ignoring the significant role they and their choices played in bringing Tess to Tantridge and into the hands of a sexual predator. If John Durbeyfeild had simply abstained from drinking the night before his journey to town, Tess would have never been raped, would never have lost her husband, and, ultimately, would never have been hung for murder. Tess’ family failed her; their selfish choices, not fate, tied their own daughter a noose. All living beings have free will, and very rarely do the effects of such stay isolated to their respective creators. In the 19th century, “fate” was used as an excuse not to take responsibility for one’s actions or their ramifications.

Like many other women in the 19th century, Tess is controlled not by herself, but by the authority figures, and specifically the men, in her life. Throughout the novel, Tess’ character is comprised only of “the formulations of others and herself” (Kincaid). She is subject to constant manipulation by the people close to her, eventually resulting in her “fall”. First, Tess is put under immense pressure by her family to improve and maintain their reputation. When Tess is asked to go live with her D’Urberville “kin” in Tantridge, she is initially hesitant, telling her family that she “‘[doesn’t] quite like Mr. [Alec] D’Urberville” (Hardy 47). Her family is quick to ignore and even criticize her reservations, guilting her into going despite them, and she, in her characteristic passivity, acquiesces easily. This pattern repeats itself several times later in the novel, and Tess neglects to stand up for herself on any occasion, demonstrating her passive, almost nonexistent character. Tess’ most prominent character trait seems to be the “curious absence” of definition – her “speech, decision-making, […] and even sense of self” are so submissive as to almost be ambiguous (Lovesey). However, in Victorian Britain, an archetypal patriarchy, passivity and submission are traits admired in women. Hardy’s characterization of Tess, as well as her ultimate demise, illustrates the damaging effects of patriarchy on women and society as a whole. Tess’ yielding nature allows her to be manipulated easily as she participates in the societal convention that ultimately destroys her.

In conclusion, Tess of the D’Urbervilles is an irony-laced social criticism of Victorian society, some of which still holds true to this day. Tess’ innocence is remorselessly stripped away by those around her and the inflexible, almost vindictive judgement of Victorian England dooms her to a life of hardship and suffering. Fate allows people to blame their shortcomings on an external source, therefore avoiding responsibility. Humanity, not fate, is the driving force behind our destinies.

Oedipus the King, assembled by Sophocles, indicates an underlying association between fate and free will. In today’s society, we let our lives be led by a distinct force that we believe in. Yet, a widespread controversy that still rages today is whether we, as a species, have free will or if some divine source, some call it fate, governs our destiny. Whether it be an elevated power deciding your life for you or the alternatives that people make. Fate compromises of being affected by a greater power to achieve your fate. Whereas free will is distinguished as having a personal choice for your behavior. Oedipus is preordained to obtain a prophecy. Even though he was a victim of fate, he was not influenced by it. His past prosecutions were deduced by fate, but what happened in Thebes, was of his own free will.

Oedipus is a supplicant of knowledge and truth. He attempts to discover Laius’s murder and his own individuality, despite various warnings that he should leave the truth alone. His quest for understanding and validity, however, results in harm as Oedipus finds his destiny, which he was better off not knowing.

Influence leads to everyone’s decisions; the things a person says will take part in our future. For Oedipus, one of these attributes was the desire for knowledge and truth about his own existence. This driving force in the play led to the truth of his origin. This ties in with his own aspect of free will. His free will is based on his drive for knowledge. The gods who control fate manipulate the thinking and concepts in human free will. Ultimately fate is what overcomes all. It may not seem like it, but free will was given to mankind by the gods or God. So in turn the gods decide the fate of everybody when they created man. It was already decided and can not be changed. One can still argue the position that free will is more dominant, but if you relate to creation and how the gods made man, fate overcomes.

Overall, destiny is the divine power that regulates free will and discerns one’s life. Oedipus character affects his hardships through his infamy by continuously withholding his own fate, as his temper took an important stance on him and the rational choices he made. The main cause of Oedipus’s downfall is his unwillingness to accept his own fate.

They all tie in together because it’s visible how their environment shapes the way they think and act. In our society, we choose to be around certain people that may or may not be an influence in positive ways. This leads to either positive or negative influences. In the Bible this topic is seen as well, “Walk with the wise and become wise, for a companion of fools suffers harm.” Influence is what we’re driven by; we are under the influence to fit in and to be a part of something. Whether it is an influence to buy things or crucial decisions we must make. In the end, we will all have control over the decisions we make and we also have control over the people we choose to be influenced by.

It has been believed that the choices we make only elude fate and fate is only a manipulator that helps choose your path. In Shakespeare’s tragic play, Macbeth (1609), the main character falls from being a nobleman by the drive of his free will to act upon the fateful words of the witches’; Macbeth in no cause is under a spell, it was his own decisions which unknowingly leads him to his downfall. Macbeth could have let fate happen on its own, but instead, he decides to test fate by taking actions that lead to serious consequences for himself and others in the play.

Macbeth, the future king, meets with the three witches. The witches say a prophecy stating he will be the ‘king of the future’. “All hail, Macbeth, thou shalt be king hereafter!” (I, iii, 50-55). This was the time when the witches had hailed Macbeth, hinting him of his deepest desire, you see the witches did not tell him how to get it, it was his free will to take action upon it. Firstly, when Macbeth says, “So foul and fair a day I have not seen” (I, iii, 38), meaning how it’s foul that the witches are arising a storm, but fair because he gained victory on the battlefield. His words are a paradox and they echo the witch’s words in the starting, “Fair is foul, and foul is fair” (I, i, 12). These lines are similar and have interrelated ideas, representing the unity between Macbeth and the forces of darkness. Macbeth’s first words in the play can be taken as; things that seem fair, like becoming king, can be foul, and which leads him to his downfall. Secondly, is how Lady Macbeth having a huge influence on Macbeth’s decisions and choices he had made throughout the play. When Lady Macbeth got the letter stating he is “Thane of Cawdor”, she says to herself, “Which fate and metaphysical aid doth seem to have the crown withal” (I, v, 29-30), stating how fate doesn’t make things happen, our actions can make Macbeth king. But she thinks to herself Macbeth is “too full o’th’ milk of human kindness” (I, v, 16) using the metaphor “milk”, to resemble he’s too kind and lacks cruelty to become a king. Finally, she takes action to guide Macbeth to strive for the crown by “pour[ing] [her] spirits in thine ear and chastise with the valor of [her] tongue” (I, v, 25-26), thus describing her plan to convince Macbeth for the crown. Therefore, the witches have not only put Macbeth on tenterhooks but as well as Lady Macbeth, which in return makes her the biggest influence in his downfall.

Despite having external influences to convince him for becoming king, the strongest argument for his free will is his ambition to be king himself, but he has 3 major obstacles that challenge his thoughts and actions to overcome them. Firstly, is how Macbeth believes that “if chance will have me, king, why, chance may crown me without my stir”, showing how in the starting he trusted his gut to believe in fate, but the turning point was when Duncan announced, “Our eldest, Malcolm, whom we name hereafter the Prince of Cumberland”(I, iv, 39-40), this is the first sign of jealously that arises leading him to plan his initial step to his downfall by saying “[Don’t let] The eye wink at the hand, yet let that be Which the eye fears, when it is done, to see” (I, iv, 54-55). His ambition was put into action by Lady Macbeth offending his manliness by accusing Macbeth of being “green and pale” (I, vii, 38), she mentions green in terms of “sickness”, making Macbeth feel small and weak. This lead by Lady Macbeth makes Macbeth murder Duncan, turning him into a tyrant. Secondly, is how he still isn’t at peace from one murder, because he knows Banquo got granted a prophecy saying, “Thou shalt get kings, though thou be none”(I, iii, 68-69), indicating he still has to overcome Banquo and Fleance, who is a threat to his future. Macbeth has become more independent and tells his wife to “be innocent of the knowledge” (III, ii, 47), signifying how he is going to carry out this murder on his own without the support of Lady Macbeth. He says how she can “applaud the deed” (III, ii, 48) after it is accomplished. This resembles how he has become a “bloody tyrant” due to his ambitious nature of achieving what he wants with his free will. Finally, is how Macbeth was warned by the witches to “Beware [of] Macduff. Beware of the thane of Fife” (IV, i, 71) when he went the second time to meet them. This is the last threat to eliminate according to the witch’s prophecies, and due to that he does not care how many kills he has done, but this last kill is still required to live threat-free. Macbeth openly challenges fate by trying to kill Macduff but kills his whole family instead. This shows us Macbeth believes he is invincible and has become overconfident. At the end of the play, Macbeth’s ambition had driven him so insane, that he had “almost forgot the taste of fears” (V, v, 9) due to the number of supernatural things he had committed.

It must not be forgotten that Macbeth, a person whose ambition, his life’s leading force, is his greatest weakness which causes him to fall from a successful position to death eventually. He had allowed power to destroy himself, making him appear very gullible. Just how when Macbeth said, “My thought, whose murder yet is but fantastical”, resembling his pitiable feelings towards his driven ambition that turned him into an atrocious human being he is now. This Shakespearean play shows the downfalls of being easily influenced or manipulated by someone or something.

Destiny, “Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice, it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved.” (William Jennings Bryan). Macbeth is a victim of his own desire. The witches played with Macbeth’s mind. They can predict, and they can suggest, but they do not necessarily control or tell Macbeth what to do. Free will is the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate. Lady Macbeth urges Macbeth, against his will, to take out any and every obstacle that is in his way so that he can fulfill the prophecy from the witches. Throughout the play, Macbeth’s actions go from being a brave, heroic man to being an evil, cowardice man. As he made each choice, he slowly began to realize that he was digging himself deeper, creating more problems.

During the play, the witches are referred to as the “weird sisters.” Macbeth was influenced by what the witches’ told him about his future. The things the witches told Macbeth led him to become obsessed with power. It led him to literally losing his mind. His conscious was right on his shoulders.

Lady Macbeth had Macbeth wrapped around her finger. At the begging of the play, Macbeth would have been considered a brave, heroic man, but Lady Macbeth turned him into an evil, coward man. She had him “brainwashed” to carry out of the evil deeds so she would not have it on her hands. Lady Macbeth did not want to wait to be queen so she sped up the process. She thought if she could talk Macbeth down and making him feel bad about himself or less of a man, it would work, and it did. Free will come in to play when they start murdering people to get things done quicker. For instance, the first murder was King Duncan. Lady Macbeth was more at fault for this one, but Macbeth is still the one who actually stabbed Duncan while he was sleeping. To go even farther, he killed the two chamberlains to cover himself up. Making that choice leads up to the play being free will instead of fate.

Macbeth became obsessed with his power, which led him to kill more innocent people. For example, the second person Macbeth killed was his best friend Banquo. The witches told him that he would become king, but his family would not carry out through generations. They told Banquo that he personally would not become king, but his sons would one day. He let the strong, powerful strength of “free will” get in the way of his daily life. This comes to show that Macbeth was so selfish and greedy that he would go to the extent of killing his best friend. The third person, of the six killed, during the play, was MacDuff’s wife and son. Once again, he murders these innocent people all to further his reign of King.

Macbeth would have been considered a nobleman at the beginning of the play, but as the play moves on, Macbeth there is a contrast in Macbeth’s character. He makes more decisions more readily and hastily, and more importantly, on his own. Along the way, he betrayed his allegiance to the king, his family and friends all for his own grain. Therefore, we learn from Macbeth that ambition is a double-edged sword, it motivates you to do your best and strive to your goal, but at the same time can allow you to lose sight of what life is all about.

In this essay, I will be discussing and evaluating the treatment and inclusion of the idea of free will within the play Oedipus The King By Sophocles as well as Medea By Euripides.

These are both two very old plays which include a plot which is intertwined with the constant influence of Fate and therefore, can be used in order to debate the influence of destiny and whether or not the characters have “Free Will”. This is an important point as Free will is very prominent in both plays and as a construct in society both when the plays were originally performed as well as in current day.

Firstly, Within Oedipus The King, Fate or Prophecies tend to become reality and this is mentioned frequently throughout. Oedipus was initially performed in ancient Greece and written by the Playwright Sophocles. The play was written based off of a well known myth that was centered around the topic of fate and whether it is possible to alter ones fate or if in fact it is impossible to impact the outcome of someone’s destiny. One such example of fate within Oedipus The King, Taylor et al.(2008, p. 15.) is when Teiresias states “This is because you are all blind To what I can see. I can’t tell you. The truth is painful. My secret. And yours.” This is directly linked to the fate of Oedipus as Teiresias is forewarning about the inevitable fate of him bedding his mother and subsequently losing his sight at his own hands. This is shown in the use of words such as “blind” and the theme of sight throughout the greater extract on this page. Teiresias next says that “ I’m saving you from Agony. And myself. Don’t ask me again, don’t waste your time. I shall tell you nothing.” This shows the way in which fate is handled and feared within ancient Greek society. Teiresias is a well respected prophet of Apollo whom is being consulted by Oedipus. And within these two quotes we can see that Teiresias knows of Oedipus’ fate but he is fearful to tell of it as Teiresias is hopeful that by not telling Oedipus, he can affect fate. Treating Fate as this overbearing force of nature is how the ancient Greek society perceived it to be. Regarding the reveal of Oedipus’ fate “You were marked for suffering, from the day you were born”, Oedipus The King. Taylor et al (2008.p, 44.). This is said by the shepherd revealing the plot by his parents Laius and Jocasta to have him killed during infancy in order to prevent the tragic events of Oedipus’ prophecy from unfolding. This shows the audience that even the will of the highest nobles of society (Laius and Jocasta) could not affect and alter the result of fate and the predetermined destiny. As the narrative shows that it is not possible to alter the result of one’s fate, it could be argued that Oedipus does not have free will as his actions are already predetermined to reach the same tragic end. This thought is what makes the play such an iconic and true Greek tragedy as it would resonate with the then audience at the festival of Dionysus in which it would have originally have been performed. “If we give ourselves up to a full sympathy to the hero, there is no question that the Oedipus Rex fulfils the function of a tragedy and arouses fear and pity in the highest degree.” Barstow, The Classical Weekly vol.6, No.1 (Oct 1912, p2-4 .) Within this journal by Marjorie Barstow, she believes that Oedipus is the “Ideal tragic hero of Aristotle” in relation to Aristotle’s The Poetics and the idea of “fatalism”. Within Oedipus The King, the tragic downfall of someone of such high status and so in favour of the gods can directly speak to the then very religious audience at a religious festival and warn them of fate and the results of attempting to go against the will of fate.

When looking at Medea, we see society’s view but flipped as at the time of it’s first performance, many would be able to resonate with Jason as the audience would be male due to beliefs about women at the time preventing them from attending. Also, the societal viewpoint on women in ancient Greece would make Medea seem even more insane for being driven to seemingly alter her own fate and choose to commit infanticide. Within Medea, Euripides. (p. 46) “All I did for you and how you did for me. You thought you’d kick me from your bed and laugh at me, unpunished. Wrong!”. This shows that the play is presenting the blame of infanticide on Jason for him driving Medea to the point of derangement in which she became capable of killing their children. Medea, much like Oedipus was a myth on which the play was based and created. This meant that the audience were very much aware of the story of Medea, but within the play, the way in which Medea chooses her plan of revenge as a result of her personal feelings of betrayal and being disregarded. The way in which Medea was treated by Jason was normal within ancient Greece, but Jason largely impacted the outcome of their fate by his choice to replace Medea with another woman. However, again within Medea, Euripides. (p. 26) “ O Zeus! Justice of Zeus! Light of the Sun! My enemies are in power… Now my enemies will pay, and pay.” Within this we see Medea call upon the gods as she is in a position where she can enact her revenge against Jason and Kreon. This shows us that the gods have an influence upon Medea and the gods are referenced, called upon and mentioned throughout the play. The intervention of the gods in Medea’s plan for revenge makes it much more likely that she was destined to reach the end she eventually does where she triumphs over Jason and escapes upon a chariot drawn by a dragon. Much like Oedipus, we can infer that Medea does not necessarily have free will since the gods have pre-determined an eventual outcome for Medea to kill her children. Therefore the way in which fate is treated is much more religiously linked yet seemingly individually shaped in the way one gets to their destined end. This contrasts with Oedipus The King, Taylor et al.(2008), in which we see Oedipus attempt to avoid the prophecy by leaving his adopted parents, only to stumble into his real father on the crossroads and subsequently partially complete his fate. This shows that Oedipus is shown to lack the free will to change his own life as he tried to go against the prophecy yet due to the lack of free will, he ended up where fate deemed him to be. In Oedipus The King, fate is much more feared and is almost used to scaremonger the audience as even Teiresias is scared to make Oedipus aware of what fate has in store for him.

In summary, Oedipus and Medea both include fate and therefore a questionable viewpoint on the free will of the protagonist and when compared with each other we can see the differing representations of fate. Within Oedipus The King we see a more overbearing and eerily controlling fate that seemingly prevents the opportunity of free will presented through the oracle of Apollo thus giving the prophecy legitimacy. Also, the fact that Oedipus attempted to use his free will to prevent completing his fate yet was unsuccessful makes the portrayal of fate to be all powerful and there to be an absence of free will to the character of Oedipus. In Medea however, the fulfilment of her fate is partially made by her derangement as a result of Jason’s prior actions. Yet, the frequent comments towards the gods does suggest that there was an intervention in the destined fate of Medea and therefore she does in fact have more free will than Oedipus. This is due to her own decision to arrive at committing Infanticide despite potentially having been partially caused by the gods on which Medea calls before going through with the act. Both plays handle fate and free will in similar ways due to societal views and beliefs at the time and as such both are very fate-centric tragedies in their own rights.

In the play “Oedipus Rex”, Sophocles shows a hidden connection between man’s free will and fate which the greek accepted to guide the universe amicable reason. A man was allowed to pick and eventually considered liable for his own behavior. Both the idea of fate and free will had an integral impact on Oedipus’ fall. In spite of the fact that he was a casualty of fate, he was not constrained by it. Oedipus was fated from birth to marry his mom and to kill his dad. This prophecy, as cautioned by the prophet of Apollo at Delphi was not open to more than one interpretation and can not be avoided. These events would happen, regardless of what he may have done to maintain a strategic distance in order to avoid it. His past activities were controlled by fate, yet what he did in Thebes, he did as such of his own volition.

From the earliest starting point of this catastrophe, Oedipus took numerous activities leading his very own destruction. Oedipus could have trusted that the plague would end, yet out of empathy for his enduring individuals, he had Creon, the brother of Queen Jocasta go to Delphi. At the point when he learned of Apollo’s promise, he could have been in a calm and peaceful manner examined the homicide of the previous King Laius. Yet in his quickness, he energetically curses the killer, and in this way, unwittingly curses himself, “I curse the doer, whether he worked alone or evaded us with accomplices, that he wear out his unlucky life as badly as he himself is bad. And I pray, if he should be known to me and share in my hearth among my family, that I suffer all that I called upon these” (Lines 252-258). As Oedipus wishes misfortune upon the killer, he does that to himself. He trusts and predicts that the killer’s life would be long and anguishing. Sophocles shows a connection between man’s free will and fate by having Oedipus carry out his own prophecy starting with his personal desire to seek out the killer of King Laius.

Oedipus’s venture looking for Laius’ killer has only helped the prophecy become a reality. His obliviousness, pride and callous journey for reality added to his devastation. After threatening Tiresias, a blind prophet of Apollo in Thebes, an unequivocal model can be seen when Oedipus was told that he was at fault for Laius’ homicide. Oedipus got maddened and considered the visually impaired prophet a liar. Oedipus figured he could conquer the divine beings. However, all his activities drew him nearer to his fate. After uncovering the reality of his introduction to the world from the shepherd, Oedipus shouts out, “Let it all burst out, if it must! As for me, though it be small, I wish to know my stock. But she, since a woman is proud of such things, she is troubled by this low birth of mine. But I deem myself the child of Chance, who gives good things, and I will not be dishonored. She is my mother, and my brothers, the Months, have seen me both small and great. Being born what I am, I could never be another, so I should seek out my descent” (Lines 1103- 1212). While Oedipus’s fate of killing his father and sleeping with his mother is sealed, he only learns that he has fulfilled his fate through persistent searching. Oedipus’ unwavering drive to reveal the reality with regards to Laius’ homicide and the secret encompassing his own introduction to the world, drove him to the heartbreaking acknowledgment of his horrendous deeds. Therefore, it is the fault of Oedipus’s own will that the tragedy is discovered, and not the fault of fate.

Sophocles supports fate by featuring to the audience the decline that Oedipus encounters. The chorus indicates the unexpected results in loss of respect and support, saying, “The generations of man— while you live, I count you as worthless, equal to nothing. For who, what man wins more happiness than just its shape and the ruin when that shape collapses?” (Lines 1216-1222). Oedipus acknowledges his fate and never again attempts to keep away from it. The achievements of Oedipus generally don’t pile up too much in contrast with the bigger issues of fate set against him. Oedipus demonstrates to be a person who needs to come to such an acknowledgment in the fiercest of habits. At last, his very own feeling of joy was a deception, broken by the truth of what defied him. He couldn’t consider himself to be a human with physical sight. Consequently, blinds himself, so as to become more noteworthy in vision into his own feeling of his place in the world. This draws out the situation of Oedipus just as the thematic reality that oversees the play. Sophocles’ vision of mankind is one in which nearsightedness rules, reflecting how people see the issue of their own bliss as being genuine, yet in fact is simply frustrated. The way in which Oedipus’ processed his thoughts in executing his dad, Laius, and wedding his mom, Jocasta, doesn’t detract from the awful idea of the wrongdoings. Oedipus is tolerating the full weight of his actions and realizes that he should be at fault for his wrongdoings. Along these lines, Oedipus’s annihilation was brought about by his freedom. However, his lamentable fate came about on account of the idea that no matter how many attempts he had to change his fate, his destiny was already shaped by the divine beings in human issues. So as to support a ‘moral lesson’ to not defy the divine beings and dodge your fate.

Throughout the hundreds of years, individuals have considered the impact of celestial power, condition, hereditary qualities, even stimulations, as deciding how free an individual is in settling on moral decisions. The ancient Greeks recognized the job of fate as a reality outside the person that forms and decides human life. In current occasions, the idea of fate has built up of sentimental predetermination. There are numerous spirits with whom we have gone into soul contracts with more than a few lifetimes. Together we consent to run into each other regularly. Frequently these spirits have a lot to show us in soul-development terms – that is a piece of the agreement and there’s no uncertainty we regularly do our most noteworthy development seeing someone. In any case, that experiencing these spirits is fated or part of our predetermination, we generally have an unrestrained choice. We can pick whether we engage with them or not, and to what extent we stay in the relationship. Soul agreements can be changed whenever. For there is just a single uncommon perfect partner who can make us really upbeat. All of us have numerous unique soul associations with others fashioned over numerous lifetimes. It’s unmistakably no better to have a fate or a development conviction. We have a bound for development conviction that works over all parts of our lives. At the point when we consider ourselves to satisfy a fate that remembers development for all parts of our lives – including our connections, we set up a conviction framework that permits genuine bounty for every one of us.

For us as individuals to have free will it suggests that as human beings, we have the ability to express and elect our own personal choices. Whereas the notion of fate entices the idea that our lives are simply determined by physical or divine forces. When focussing on the treatment of free will and fate in relation to Greek tragedies, one can recognise that this theme was often established as the driving forces of conflict. In ancient Greece, the lives of people seemed to be determined by the concept of fate; it was common belief that your fate was set for you from the moment you were born into existence – you couldn’t escape your destiny. Focussing on the main dramatists, Euripides and Sophocles, we can explore whether tragedies were created using the divine powers of the three fates, the Moirai, spinning, measuring and cutting each person’s destiny (Ancarola, 2018). Or, whether the power of free will prevailed and people could choose how they wanted to live their lives. Through studying Medea and Oedipus the King, this essay will seek to find out in what ways the playwrights have used precise influences of destiny and significant personal choice, to further develop the lives and paths of their characters.

Medea by Euripides is a Greek tragedy that follows the main protagonist’s journey of revenge against her unfaithful husband, Jason – after leaving her and their two children for King Creon’s daughter, Glauce. In Medea, the characters make multiple references to the gods as the cause of struggle. A key piece of dialogue takes place between Medea and the Tutor, where they discuss the golden crown and robe that has been laced with a fatal poison. They boast that this package has been successfully delivered to Jason’s new mistress the Princess of Corinth. One line said by Medea is most striking, “I have no choice old man, none at all. This is what the gods and I have devised, I and my foolish heart”. (Euripides, 2003, p.77). The ‘gods’ that Medea refers to could be Eros, Aphrodite and Hera, who, in the myth of Jason and the Golden Fleece, are the engineers of Medea’s love for Jason. (Wood, 2011). The declaration of “I have no choice old man, none at all…I and my foolish heart” (Euripides, 2003, p.77) suggests that Medea has conceded her free will and that she could in fact blame the gods for the outcome, as her malevolent plans stem from the artificially encouraged love that she has for Jason.

The significant personal choice made by Medea of killing her own children undoubtedly demonstrates her power to do as she pleases. Filicide is an unearthly act and Medea states “I am well aware how terrible a crime I am about to commit, but my passion is the master of my reason, passion that causes the greatest suffering in the world” (Euripides, 2003 p.78). This passage reinforces the concept of independent thinking and free will in the play. Regardless of Medea’s own doubts of killing her children, her human nature and uncontrollable need for revenge is so strong, she has conceded to the prospect of killing her children. Additionally, during Medea’s soliloquy which debates the future of her children, no vows were made and there was no invocation of the gods to assist her this the decision, it was her own free will that brought her to this unnatural decision.

Contrary to the seemingly obvious display of free will concerning the murder of her children, in the ending of Medea, Euripides indicates interference from the gods that provides evidence of tampering from the divine. Through the improbable use of Deus ex Machina, a term originally coined in ancient Greek, plays as stage machinery used to bring deities to intervene in action (Collins, 2016). Medea makes her exit in a ‘chariot drawn by dragons’ and exclaims “Such is the chariot that the Sun, my father’s father, has given to me, to keep me safe from enemy hands” (Euripides, 2003, p.84). Medea’s ability to leave the country, freely and unpunished for her actions illustrates the gods overlooking her vicious acts yet still protect her. Touching on the creation of Greek Tragedy, Aristotle in The Poetics states that “the unravelling of the plot…must arise out of the plot itself, it must not be brought about by the Deus Ex Machina – As in the Medea” (Butcher, 2011, 23%), which undeniably hints that he was distinctly unimpressed with the ending scene in Medea, due to Euripides’s use of the aforementioned stage device. However, developing on the initial discussion of the treatment of fate in this particular Greek Tragedy, Ruth Scodel (2010 p.131) declared that “Like a god, she flies, and she speaks as only gods ordinarily speak” in reference to the Deus Ex Machina, which proposes that Euripides may have used this manoeuvre to display the indisputable contribution from gods in the play.

Oedipus the King, written by Sophocles, clearly portrays the popular belief in ancient Greece that fate will indefinitely control all aspects of life, despite the presence of free will. Throughout the play Sophocles uses the concept of free will and fate as a vital part of Oedipus’ ruin. In the opening episode Creon announces “The ruler of this land, my lord, was Laius…He met with violent death – and now the oracle speaks clear: we must exact revenge upon his murderers” (Sophocles, 2015, p.18), which sets the motion that Oedipus must find out the truth behind the previous Kings murder in order to cure the curse that feasts upon Thebes. The presence of divine rulers is established quickly within the story as the ‘oracles’ have given the precise remedy to Oedipus’ problems. Unaware that the ancient prophecy that he was destined to wed his mother and kill his father, from the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi, has already come to pass, Oedipus begins a journey and through his self-determination and free will, transitions from ignorance to knowledge that inevitably leads him to his destiny.

The treatment of free will in Oedipus the King can be explored through the fatal flaw that presents itself within the character of Oedipus. The fatal flaw is represented in The Poetics by the Greek word Hamartia “which covers getting something wrong or making a mistake in the most general sense … and includes errors made in ignorance or through mis-judgement” (Heath, 1996, 20%). Oedipus’ fatal flaw is his erroneous judgement and subsequently, his ultimate downfall comes from a series of ill-fated miss-judgements that are made as he incessantly aims to do the right thing. The idea of Oedipus presenting Hamartia throughout the play provides a ground to believe that free will plays an important underlying theme throughout the play. Oedipus has the power in himself to not only make choices but to act and as Knox states “For the plot of the play consists not of the actions which Oedipus was “fated” to perform, or rather, which were predicted; the plot of the play consists of his discovery that he has already fulfilled the prediction. And this discovery is entirely due to his action” (1996 p.149). Even though this ultimately shows that Oedipus is able to make a range of independent choices and influence the actions in the play, this demonstration of free will can be hindered by certain pieces of the plot that highlight the involvement of destiny and the gods.

An example of the fatal flaw that displays Oedipus’ free will is when he makes the decision to find out about his past. Even after Jocasta pleads with him to look no further, Oedipus professes “That is impossible: when I have got such clues as these, I must reveal my origins” (Sophocles, 2015, p.55). His determination to find out the truth and the independent choice he makes to do so is what unearths his ‘origins’, and ultimately leads him to the recognition that he has already fulfilled the prophecy he was destined for and thus begins his destruction.

In his translation of Oedipus the King, Oliver Taplin notes that “Human lives are their own lives, then, with only rare interventions or interferences from outside superhuman powers. And yet they always (of course) end up doing what the gods have determined, or the oracles have foretold, or the curses have called down” (2015 p.7).

In conclusion, I think the above statement sums up the representation and deliverance of fate and free will in both the Greek tragedies discussed in this essay. Throughout both texts, fate and the gods are seen to be at fault for causing problems or interfering with the characters’ lives. As seen in the prophecies laid out in Oedipus or the gods having influenced Medea’s behaviour through her love for Jason, the involvement of destiny, fate and divine powers are prominent. However, we mustn’t forget that the choices made by the characters are of their own mind and heart, offering the figurative idea of free will as they make their own decisions. In the end, I believe that it is their own decisions in life that ultimately fulfil their illusion of what their fate may be.

Bibliography

1. Ancarola, G. (2018). The Moirai, the Fates of Greek Mythology. Available from: https://greece.greekreporter.com/2018/03/17/the-moirai-the-fates-of-greek-mythology/ [Accessed 28 Dec. 2018]
2. Aristotle. (1996) The Poetics. Translated by M. Heath. London: Penguin Classics. [Kindle Edition]
3. Aristotle. (2011) The Poetics. Translated by S. H. Butcher. CreateSpace Independent Publisher. [Kindle Edition]
4. Collins English Dictionary, (2016). Available from: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/deus-ex-machina [Accessed 22 Dec. 2018].
5. Euripides. (1996). Medea and Other Plays. Translated by J. Davie and R. Rutherford. London: Penguin Classics.
6. Knox, B., (1982) Introduction to The Three Theban Plays by Sophocles. London: Penguin Classics.
7. Scodel, R. (2010). An introduction to Greek tragedy. Cambridge University Press.
8. Sophocles. (2015). Oedipus The King and Other Tragedies. Translated by O. Taplin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
9. Wood, M. (2011). BBC – History -Ancient History in depth: Jason and the Golden Fleece. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/jason_01.shtml [Accessed 1 Jan. 2019].