Category: Oedipus Rex

ABSTRACT

In Greek society there is a great influence of myths on the literature and traditions. People believe that gods have a great role in the making of their fate. People and significant heroes try to escape from destiny but they are generally surrounded by the fate, in order to make them tragic This can be seen in many Greek dramas like Oedipus Rex by Sophocles. He was a religious person and he was inspired by belief of people in gods that they are most powerful and cruel to the mankind. In Greek mythology, human life was in the hands of gods. Fate was pre-decided and could not be escaped at any cost. Oedipus and so many others, who tried very hard to deceive the destiny, but the cage of tragic and cruel fate was very much tricky so in spite of all preventions taken by them, were led to the final destiny which was pre-decided.

Introduction

The present study describes The Role of Fate in play Oedipus Rex by Sophocles. He was a great Greek dramatist. ’Oedipus Rex’ is a great work that is present inform of tragic drama. This play revolves around of theme that Man is puppet in hand of fate. According to Aristotle this play is finished deplorable story of a saint who every time attempts to misdirect his destiny yet bombs over and over. There are two ideas which are given in this play. On the primary spot it gives the message of the wild destiny and on the second spot it points out the tragic blemish. It will be depicted all through our examination paper that how destiny assumes an incredible job in the life of a man as a pre-decided instrument. As a matter of fact this play shows that how man is weak before his destiny. Here the destiny of a kid is end up being directly based on his own through and through freedom.

As like man can’t live without breath, in such a way Greek dramatization shows up no more without the job of destiny. Destiny has remained the central topic of Greek dramatization from its place of starting for example peak to its closure point for example end Shepherd takes pity to him. He doesn’t keep it on the pick of mountain. As a matter of fact, the fate of Oedipus spares him from unavoidable passing. The shepherd offers Oedipus to another shepherd who is the individual from another realm. He takes it and demonstrates him to his lord.

The lord has no kid so he turns out to be extremely glad to get Oedipus. He and his better half accept incredible consideration as their youngster. Bit by bit Oedipus becomes cultivator step by step. After certain years after the fact when Oedipus is youthful enough, one day he gets notification from another celestial prophet that he will kill his dad and wed his mom. Around then he doesn’t have a clue about his genuine character, he imagines that Polybus is his dad. So he wouldn’t like to slaughter his dad and wed his mom.

Around then he leaves the nation to dispose of the more regrettable work. He comes back to his own nation however he doesn’t realize that it is his own nation. It is the making of predetermination. Oedipus strolls along the street and goes towards his nation. Out of nowhere his dad, alongside his fastens is additionally going ahead the street from his contrary site. Around then just for a basic issue a significant issue has been made. Oedipus has murdered his dad lord Laius and his fastens just for a basic issue. In this way, here the first foresee has gotten valid and the destiny has won and vanquished the difficult of a man. The individuals of that realm have heard that the ruler has been executed by certain looters.

Analysis

The present study describes the destiny in Oedipus Rex, it is accepted by numerous pundits that the character of Oedipus isn’t genuine however a legendary one. Greek individuals were adherents of legends and they used to consider them not anecdotal but rather the genuine accounts of their divine beings and individuals. Fundamentally the word fantasy is authored from Greek word mythos. It is multidimensional word, here and there it has been converted into English as ‘story’ or ‘discourse”. Furthermore, here and there it additionally can be utilized as an extended term for stories which are associated with the divine beings and furthermore with the connections of humanity with divine beings. Legends are stories which are moved from one age to another age by the expressions of mouth yet in addition can be spread by the written words or in the melodic structure. The topic of legends fluctuates additionally from country to country yet generally they are identified with the normal marvel and the common occasions and their reality likewise is primary piece of fantasies.

Destiny can be characterized as a wonder that there is a common force that is otherworldly which predetermines the occasions of human life and even it likewise can fix the day of death. Individuals who have conviction on God accept on destiny, which is unchangeable and unescapable, so whatever avoidances and alerts would be taken it will be looked by people. As Greek individuals were a lot of passivists that is the reason they accepted that human life is heavily influenced by destiny and all humans are just manikins in the possession of predetermination. The destiny which is called by them as Moira, is viewed as leader of human fate. It is their firm conviction that it is generally fierce and alarming certainty of the existence that there will never be a way out from destiny. It is amazing to such an extent that occasionally divine beings additionally were vulnerable against the destiny. Despite the fact that they knew about their destiny however couldn’t transform it (Articles and considering on the idea of Fate for the antiquated Greeks).

So it was wild and heavenly wonder for Greeks. As in Oedipus Rex, Prophet plainly concedes that it is difficult to defeat upon destiny, so by articulating’ what will be, will be’, he drops his weapons and completely depend on the preference of destiny. As per Greek way of thinking, people get their destiny in their legacy and it is foreordained thing However, the idea of destinies in Greek Philosophy is a lot of ambiguous. In Hesiod’s Theogony, destinies have been introduced in beginning as little girls of Night. She bore Atropos, Clotho, and Lachesis, yet by perusing entire sonnet we come to realize that they are credited to Zeus and Themis (Roman, Luke, and Roman, 1999). In any case, subsequent choice is broadly adequate on the planet that Themis was the goddess of the need and she brought forth her three little girls to be specific Klottho, Lakhesis and last one was Atropos. They by and large are called destinies. Klotho needed to develop the turn of human life, which was utilized to quantify by her second sister Lakhesis with the assistance of her estimating bar and was at long last cut by the third one called Atropos Presently the time has come to return to the appropriate response of our first inquiry. As writing is the impression old enough, so Sophocles additionally had been pulled in by the topic of destiny utilized by different scholars in his age.

By depicting representation of destiny in plays, he made them sad. He is incredible author of disaster in all ages, his deplorable play Oedipus Rex is his perfect work of art about job of destiny in human life. In this play ruler Oedipus is the hero, who is misled by his kismet. Along these lines he turned into a bolt according to destiny. So as to keep away from the destiny, when Oedipus was conceived, Luis and Jocasta chose to execute the recently conceived infant. Along these lines, they gave their child to the Shepard of Thebes for murdering. In any case, here destiny made a move and Shepard indicated his leniency upon him and he offered infant to the second Shepard who had a place with the Corinth. The subsequent Shepard gave this child to the lord of Corinth Polybius as he was fruitless.

In the association of destiny, there is an appalling blemish and pride which lead Oedipus toward the section conditions. In such a significant number of spots in the play his pride has been uncovered by Sophocles. Essentially the idea of deplorable imperfection has been talked about by Aristotle in his Poetics. As per him the best fitting legend is the one, who has characteristics of an extraordinary man yet because of the component of critical blunder, he will endure and settle on such choices which will lead him toward his destruction (Peter, 2003). So these characteristics can likewise be found in the character of Oedipus. In the start of the play the character of Oedipus has been appeared as a perfect grievous legend. So as to spare his kin, he attempts his best and yet his character shows that he is really battling against himself. He begins scan for the reviled contaminated thing which has become the primary driver of obliteration of the city. So as to spare his pride and fame in Thebes, he turns out to be particularly baffle individual. His discourse with Prophet Tiresias uncovers that he is the real enemy of his dad yet because of heartbreaking defect he doesn’t quit looking until he finds the truth.

This as well as in the subsequent scene, when Oedipus faults on Creon about connivance against his realm he doesn’t think about the expressions of Prophet yet against of this, he put faults on the Creon and Prophet. As a result of his resentment and pride, he calls Prophet as visually impaired and brings out him to leave the feline alone out of the confine. As the play pushes ahead we come to realize that because of pride and his own unrestrained choice, Oedipus has committed error so often before. At the point when he meets with individuals where three streets meet, because of pride he doesn’t give any consideration on their orders and starts battling with them and in the last executes them (830-840).

At the point when he tackles the conundrum of Sphinx, he gets sovereign as a blessing, yet he disregards her age. It is conceivable that she might be his mom since she is as old as his mom can be. At the point when Shepherd uncovers that he isn’t initially from Corinth, he is by all accounts stunned and again begins an examination, so as to know the truth. His interest for self-recognizable proof doesn’t let him to go a long way from the real world. Being a self-determent individual he dismisses even his darling spouse Jocasta, who attempts to prevent him from the inquisitive statistical data points about his existence since she knows all. In the last, when Shephard of Thebes will not uncover reality, Oedipus mishandles him and even he puts effect on him to come clean. So the appropriate response can be deduced along these lines that it was his self-examination about himself which drives him toward his own defeat. On the off chance that he didn’t explore anything, at that point he would not be ousted from Thebes and may be living with his beloveds.

Conclusion

The result of this study has shown that, Destiny is pre-decided and unchangeable. Individuals can’t deny it is possible that they concur with it or not. As Oedipus’ destiny was at that point composed so how might he deny it? In the event that something is written in our destiny it will happen like in Oedipus Rex. At the point when destiny is pre-predominant than everything bolster it deliberately or unknowingly. Nature, our cognizant, episodes and man himself help destiny and afterward whatever is written in our destiny turns out to be genuine in light of the fact that ‘what will be, will be’. Alongside the job of destiny, it appears to be obviously in the play that there is a type of defects in the character of Oedipus which help him in the satisfaction of his appalling destiny. He notwithstanding being wise couldn’t unravel his own enigma as Prophet prods him that why he doesn’t right his own slip-up as he is a lot of astute in the conundrum tackling. So, on the off chance that we expel the appalling defect from his character, it will just show the defenselessness of mankind against the divine beings.

References

1. Dodds, Erec Robertson. ‘On Misunderstanding the Oedipus Rex.’ null (Second Series) 13.01 (1966)
2. Draper, J. W. ” Hybris’ in Shakespeare’s Tragic Heroes.’ Études Anglaises18.3 (1965): 228.
3. Alireza Farahbakhsh. Exploring the Applicability of Aristotle’s ‘Tragic Flaw’ to Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex (2013)
4. Barstow, Marjorie. ‘Oedipus Rex as the Ideal Tragic Hero of Aristotle.’ The Classical Weekly 6.1 (1912): 2-4.
5. Yuehua, Guo. ‘Oedipus Rex: Fate, Truth and Self-will/Oedipus Rex: Destin, Verité, Entetement.’ Canadian Social Science 2.4 (2006): 4

Sophocies’ Oedipus is believed to be a tragic hero, in the past times of theatre. Oedipus’ odd destiny primes him for a catastrophic collapse that gives each reader and listener a feeling that affects them emotionally. Aristotle believes that Oedipus’ upsetting story meets the necessities as a heartbreaking protagonist through his competence to reserve his quality and insight, in spite of his faults and difficulty. Aristotle’s interpretation of a sad hero will not depict the absence of morals or even the naughtiness of the central character, based on a blunder of ruling. Oedipus was raised with no morals. “We must surely assume that the violent murderous assault inflicted a severe trauma on the defenseless 3-day-old infant, and one can only imagine the screams, the bleeding, and deformity of the ankles, and the sense of disaster and tragedy that would have horrified any observer.” (Steiner. 2018) (The disaster and play so flawlessly fits the Aristotelian features of Oedipus.

Seeing Aristotle’s explanation of a tragic hero, it can be said that Oedipus suits the definition flawlessly with numerous qualities that he shows and the cause of his heartbreaking fall:

There remains then the man who occupies the mean between saintliness and depravity. He is not extra-ordinary in virtue and righteousness and yet does not fall into bad fortune because of evil and wickedness but because of some hamartia of a kind found in men ofsimilar families (Adade-Yeboah, Ahenkora, & Amankwa, 2012, pg.2).

Aristotle’s description of a tragic hero truly fits the Oedipus because of the several personalities he exhibits and the source of his fall. It is known that Oedipus is not a saint, but his astonishing skill to outthink the Sphinx and crack the puzzle gives him much reverence. This situation, after thinking of what a tragic hero should be, we contemplate Aristotle’s major traits that make it so. Aristotle was a great scientist in ancient Greek time developed the theory of rhetoric and wrote many works on psychology, political science, and astronomy to name only a few (Eagle, 2008). Aristole was also heavily involved philosophical logic within the stify of right and wrong working under Plato, his mentor, who solely invested himself in drama and philosophy (Eagle, 2008). In the name of a tragic hero, Aristotle recognizes the main character, known in literary terms as the protagonist, as someone of high virtue or a high position who makes a decision that leads to that character’s own downfall (Kennedy & Gioia, 2016, pg. 905). Oedipus fits Aristotle’s explanation as a tragic hero in countless ways. First, Oedipus was of high position as King of Thebes after saving the city from a sphinx, a mythological beast, by answering its puzzle (Edmunds, 2006). Next, Oedipus is depicted as a person with quality. As the Long of Thebus, he is worried for his people in trying times and selflessly seeks truth and resolutions for them, but in due course discovers truths about his own life. Oedipus makes an immense error, flaw of the character – leading to definitive destined downfall.

Oedipus receives sanctification as King, a repayment for saving the individuals of Thebes, which gave him more influence as he developed into holy leader of the town. The Priest talks to Oedipus: “Great Oedipus, O powerful King of Thebes” (Sophocles, 425, pg. 860). Even still, this close to holiness has been treacherously blemished by his relations with Jocasta, his mother. Despite not knowing the true facts about their genetic connection, it still makes it wrong.

The history of Thebes is not known to Oedipus; so, you cannot label him as a killer. Oedipus did murder but not knowingly of who King Laius was. Oedipus’ moral stance was his claim against the assassination. Had roles been reversed and the battle had an opposite outcome, King Laius’ defense would have also been for reasons of honor: for reasons of royalty. Oedipus was royalty and knew it as well did King Lauis. The main idea behind Oedipus’ innocence is that “royalty.” Regardless of either their class standings, a fight occurred. King Laius was the one to begin it. Oedipus knew what his duty was and that was what he wanted to follow. He wanted to save thousands all the individuals and he would it no matter the cost. This is a blameless person and a dependable King. “My words are uttered as a stranger to the act, a stranger to its tale”

At the beginning of the play, Oedipus’ actions make him out to be a very naïve and arrogant individual. This is especially shown in the conversation Oedipus has with Tiresias. Often, he refers to Oedipus as the one who is sightless, fatefully, this is correct. As Tiresias says, it is essentially Oedipus’s actions, not known to Oedipus, that made the gods angry and are producing Thebes’ existing, disturbing plaque. Tiresias blames Oedipus of being ignorant to his own actions. Blind, in this context, is the same as being naïve, proving that Oedipus’s choices in the start of the play are directed by unknown facts. Oedipus’s arrogance is demonstrated in the opening of the play as well. His haughtiness primes him to draw the conclusion that Creon is participating in a plot to try and overthrow Oedipus. In fact, Oedipus even blames Tiresias of involvement in the scheme, which is why he becomes so infuriated by Tiresias’s prediction and will not give it credibility.

By the conclusion of the show, Oedipus’s need for the facts and his need to end the outbreak turn him into a humiliated and tormented man. He cannot deny the reality of what Tiresias says when he learns from Jocasta that King Laius was slain at a intersection heading in the direction of Delphi, nor can he reject the prediction once he learns from the Shepard that he gave away Jocasta’s child. Realizing he is the one who caused the illness and did terrible evils towards his parents and the gods, humble him making him gouge out his own eyes, and also leads him to step down as King and leave the city. The fact that he can humble himself demonstrations that he is a robust and honorable character. Just as the speaker ends the play, Oedipus comes out from the fortress. With his blind eyes streaming with blood, he yells and rages at his destiny. He also yells and curses the darkness that will forever be with him. He says that Apollo fated his calling, but it was he alone who penetrated his eyes. He requests that he be exiled from Thebes. The chorus cowers away from Oedipus as he swears on his life’s blessings. “The question of responsibility and guilt is complicated. Oedipus has killed Laius, but he responds to one crime by committing another. He is involved in an incestuous relationship, although he can claim it was unknowingly. To understand the question of guilt in the tragedy we have to consider the structure of Sophocles’ drama and the way he unfolds the tragic emotions.” (Zachrisson. 2019)

References

1. Adade-Yeboah, A. & Amankwa, A. S. (2012). The tragic hero of the post – classical Renaissance.
2. Studies in Literature and Language, 5(3), 119-123. Laval: Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture.
3. Kennedy, X & Gioia, D. (2016) Literature: An Introduction to Fiction, Poetry, Drama, and Writing, Compact, 8th Edition
4. Sophocles, and E. H. Plumptre. Oedipus Rex: (Oedipus the King). Stilwell, KS: Digireads.com Publishing, 2005
5. Edmunds, L. (2006) Opedius
6. Steiner, John. ‘The Trauma and Disillusionment of Oedipus.’ International Journal of Psychoanalysis 99.3 (2018): 555-68. ProQuest. Web. 6 May 2019.
7. Zachrisson, Anders. ‘Oedipus the King: Quest for Self-Knowledge – Denial of Reality. Sophocles’ Vision of Man and Psychoanalytic Concept Formation.’ International Journal of Psychoanalysis 94.2 (2013): 313-31. ProQuest. Web. 6 May 2019.

Both Sophocles’ Oedipus the King and Plato’s Apology explore the limits of human wisdom. Socrates spends times trying to understand the nature of wisdom and whether the people who claim to possess it actually do. This investigation stems from the oracle, who proclaimed that Socrates was the wisest man in Athens. Through this quest, Socrates develops a negative reputation, and this is what leads to his eventual death sentence. Oedipus, on the other hand, is revered by the Thebans. In an attempt to save Thebes from the pollution they are facing, he seeks the truth about the darkness that plagues the city. Yet in his pursuit, Oedipus reveals his identity as the killer of the late King Laius and his involvement in the incestuous relationship with his mother. Through questioning and eventual downfall, both Socrates and Oedipus ultimately adhere to their fate, both coming to the conclusion that human knowledge is futile. Socrates accepts this notion, going gracefully to his death, as he is content in the fact that his soul has been well taken care of. Oedipus, however, ends in ruin, as the knowledge he acquires proves detrimental to his existence.

In Plato’s Apology, Socrates speaks in court about his experience with the Oracle of Delphi. Chaerephon, Socrates’ friend from youth ventures to the oracle to ask if any man was wiser than Socrates, to which the oracle replied that “no one was wiser,” (Apo. 21a). With this in mind, Socrates begins his quest to find someone wiser than he, using elenchus to hopefully contradict the oracle’s initial declaration. After initially questioning the “public man” (Apo. 21c), Socrates determines that neither he [the public man] nor Socrates himself were wise, since “he thinks he knows something when he does not, whereas when I do not know, neither do I think I know…” (Apo. 21d). Socrates goes into this encounter believing that those were deemed wise through the lens of society will surely be able to prove the oracle wrong. By refuting the notion that these men are enlightened, Socrates displays his understanding of the limits of human knowledge and does not assume that he knows more. However, in another sense, Socrates is proving the oracle to be correct. While everyone around him is falsely assuming their own wisdom as being something of higher power, Socrates seems to be the only one aware of the ignorance he possesses. Despite the fact that he concludes that he knows nothing, he is instead denying the value of the wisdom possessed by humans, not the lack. “Finally I went to the craftsmen, for I was conscious of knowing practically nothing, and I knew that I would find that they had knowledge of many fine things. In this I was not mistaken…” (Apo. 22d) Socrates admits here that humans do hold a type of surface level wisdom, such as craftsmanship or poetry, but he goes on to say that they believe this wisdom translates to “other important pursuits” (Apo. 22e). This comes as the error in their judgement, as real human wisdom, according to Socrates, includes the fact that they hold ignorance in more divine matters.

Hybris, being an exaggerated sense of self-pride, is evident among those who Socrates questions, the most prominent being Meletus. While cross-examining Meletus, Socrates says to the jury, “The man appears to me, men of Athens, highly insolent and uncontrolled. He seems to have made this deposition out of insolence, violence, and youthful zeal,” (Apo. 27a). Hybris often acts as a catalyst for a character’s downfall. Socrates is catching Meletus in a contradiction, as he [Meletus] claims, quite confidently, that Socrates actively does not believe in the gods. Meletus exhibits hybris as he “deals frivolously with serious matters” (Apo. 24d). Socrates appears incredulous at the remarks of Meletus, as he is providing statements for which he cannot prove. Being a young and unexperienced prosecutor, it is obvious that Meletus is attempting to gain a reputation through this trial and will do so by whatever means necessary. Socrates, a seventy-year-old man, is just in believing that he possesses more wisdom than Meletus, just purely through life experience. He uses this as fuel in the elenchus, as he points out to Meletus that not even he could believe his own accusations against Socrates.

The Greek definition of hybris details a man going against the words of the gods out of pride. Oedipus particularly embodies this trait as, throughout the play, he continuously defies the words of the gods. After being cast away by his birth parents, Oedipus is rescued and raised by the king and queen of Corinth. During this time, he receives the prophecy that he will kill his father and marry his mother, causing him to leave his “home” in hopes to avoid this fate. The fact that Oedipus, a mortal, believes that he can avoid a fate predestined to him by the gods goes to show that he possesses an arrogance that exemplifies hybris. He believes that he has escaped this path and marries the queen of Thebes after his defeat of the Sphynx. A pollution overtakes Thebes, caused by a murder that “blew the plague breath on our city,” (Oed. p12). Oedipus takes it upon himself to find the murderer of the prior king, Laius, as that is what is causing the city of Thebes to suffer. It is now revealed by the prophet Teiresias that Oedipus is the murderer of the late king. “You are the killer. You bring the pollution upon Thebes,” (Oed. p20). Oedipus exhibits hybris again after being given this information, as he is vehemently denying the accusation. He is quick to accuse someone else of putting Teiresias up to this, saying ‘you didn’t find this accusation through your art,” (Oed. p21). Teiresias, as a prophet, is someone who speaks on the behalf of the gods. This instant rebuttal to Teiresias’ claim is an indirect denial of the word of the gods on the part of Oedipus. This can be attributed to Oedipus’ initial dislike of Teiresias, as he is not acting as a subject typically acts towards their king. “You are the king. But I have the right to speak my mind freely. In this too I am king,” (Oed. p23). Teiresias is subverting the power of Oedipus as a king, which provides a basis for Oedipus’ dislike. He challenges Oedipus’ status, claiming that he is blind to the truth and has no other choice but to listen to him. It is at this point where Oedipus once again exhibits hybris. He is too proud as king to listen to a subject, even though the words spoken are words from the gods.

In the Apology the consequences incurred upon Socrates not cause him suffering, as he believes that his soul has been taken care of. “A good man cannot be harmed in either life or death,” (Apo. 41d). Human wisdom defines death as a permanent cessation of the mind and body. Socrates, however, does not adhere to human knowledge, as he knows that is does not mean much. He speaks only for himself and for the gods, and because of this he does not fear death in the way of humans. “To fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not, to think one knows what one does not know,” (Apo. 29a). Socrates explains that to fear death implies that a human knows what is to happen once they die. This sort of wisdom is one that comes only from the gods, so a human possessing the fear of death is claiming they possess divine wisdom. Since Socrates is aware that he doesn’t know what happens after death, he simply cannot fear it. He is conscious of this break in his knowledge, and that is why he is able to go forth in his death with no qualms towards the results of his trial. This pursuit of knowledge that Socrates set forth on has not affected his well being in the long run, as he has approached knowledge in a virtuous way, acknowledging that the wisdom that he does possess means little.

Oedipus, on the other hand, is harmed greatly by the knowledge he seeks out, both physically and spiritually. His approach to wisdom is arrogant, and this ultimately results in his downfall.

The title characters of Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex and Nathanial Hawthorne’s ‘Young Goodman Brown’ share common traits — those of arrogance, righteousness and a belief that they could raise themselves to the level of the gods. Both sought to define the wicked, though only Oedipus truly succeeded because he determined to discover the truth even if it meant his own destruction while Goodman Brown, through fear or stupid, smug piety never confirmed or denied whether his one defining event — that wild witch meeting in the woods — was reality or merely a dream.

Though their motives differ, both acted based on what they thought they knew. Goodman Brown, sure in his judgements of the moral character of others and acting on morbid curiosity or perhaps a desire to affirm his beliefs about the nature of mankind, tested himself against the devil — and lost. Oedipus, sure in his ability to solve any riddle and see truth clearly, hoping first to save his parents from his own evildoing and later to save his country from death, tried to circumvent divine will as predicted by Apollo’s oracle — and failed. Both were righteous and rash in their quest to quash evil. Each thought he, alone, could hunt out and defeat wrongdoing on his own terms.

Each perceived himself to be the epitome of goodness: Oedipus because of his superior reasoning ability and his compassion towards family and country; Brown simply because of his affiliations to those pious and good such as his wife, the minister and the Deacon. Oedipus believed he could change the laws of nature as foretold by the oracle and thus escape evildoing. Goodman Brown believed he can dabble in evildoings with little long term effect. After all he has the love of a ‘blessed angel on earth,’ his aptly named wife, Faith, to return home to. Additionally, he is descended from ‘a race of honest men and good Christians since the days of the martyrs,’ and has kept company with ‘pious and exemplary’ folk such as Goody Cloyse ‘who had taught him catechism in his youth and was still his moral and spiritual advisor, jointly with the minister and Deacon Gookin.’ In reality, Brown is a fence-sitter. He perceives himself as a perfect judge of others: Are

they pious or ungodly? Do they meet at the communion table or riot in the taverns? Perhaps it is the absolutist need of his to label others to one extreme or another that put his own soul in such a precarious position when he discovered (or dreamt) that these same folk he thought were saintly Christians were all in attendance at a witch-meeting. While the reader is not told the specific purpose of Brown’s evil errand, we know that ‘Goodman Brown felt himself justified in making more haste on his present evil purpose’ vowing that ‘after this one night I’ll cling to her skirts and follow her to heaven.’

Oedipus, despite his arrogance, could certainly still be considered a hero. He, at least was successful in rooting out the evil that would have wreaked the fall of Thebes, and while he did not save himself or his parents from their destiny, he at least took responsibility for his actions and admitted that he had lived blind to the rumors of his birth, blind to the faithfulness of his brother-in-law Creote, and blind to the will of the gods. Oedipus’ dogged search for the truth remained even though it meant his own destruction and banishment from his kingdom.

Goodman Brown, on the other hand, ended his search too soon. At the onset, he is sure he knows the true moral character of his townfolk, his wife and his ancestors; and in fact is quick to draw the line between sinners and saints; but after one devilish night which he is not sure is real, he becomes ‘a stern, a sad, a darkly meditative, a distrustful, if not desperate man,’ who doubts all that he knew and all around him.

In the end each was left miserable and alone. Oedipus lost his wife to suicide, his family to shame and was banished from Thebes at his own request. Oedipus was guilty, but his real sin was not in killing his father or marrying his mother, it was his presumption that he could change fate. And in the end, he realized his wrongs and took responsibility for them. Brown, while he stayed with his wife until death and never left his small community is separated from them by his own distrust of their moral make-up. This distrust was born not from proof but from his own doubts about the nature of mankind and his own quickness to judge others. Better he had judged himself with as much scrutiny as Oedipus had.

The novel Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe has been influenced by Oedipus Rex by Sophocles. The protagonists of both these works are similar because Okonkwo and Oedipus are both successful, they both have a flawed character, and they both experience a demise.

​Things Fall Apart’s protagonist Okonkwo and Oedipus Rex’s Oedipus are similar in that they are both successful. Both of these characters, Okonkwo and Oedipus, are both famous, well known, and their people admired them. In the book Things Fall Apart, the narrator said, “Okonkwo was well known throughout the nine villages and even beyond. His fame rested on personal achievements” (3). At the beginning of Things Fall Apart the villages, and the Igbo people valued personal strength. In Oedipus Rex, the priest says, “Oedipus, our king, most powerful in all men’s eyes, we’re here as suppliants, all begging you to find some help for us” (lines 46-48) shows how his people believe that he is the “most powerful in all men’s eyes” because he had previously saved the city. The author, Chinua Achebe, makes Okonkwo similar to Oedipus in this way because this would create a greater climax. When everything goes downhill for Okonkwo, the feeling of tragedy and doom would be exacerbated because he was great in the beginning. If the character was mediocre, the effect would be less effective. Oedipus proves to be a great man because he “freed the city from the tribute they were paying to that cruel singer” (line 41-42). He single-handedly solved the city’s problem with the Sphinx. As a ruler, he is kind to his people and this is shown in the play when he says, “What feelings brings you to me – fear or desire? You can be confident that I will help. I shall assist you willingly in every way. I would be a hard-hearted man indeed if I did not pity suppliants like these” (lines 11-15). Okonkwo is not a ruler, but he plays a significant role in his community. As a leader in his community, he rules with strength and not with generosity. In the beginning of the novel, the narrator said, “That was many years ago, twenty years or more, and during this time Okonkwo’s fame had grown like a bush-fire in the harmattan” (3). And this fame stemmed from the fact that he “brought honor to his village by throwing Amalinze the Cat” (3). Both of these characters, Oedipus and Okonkwo, experienced success and fame because of their actions and their personal strength. Oedipus saved the town from the Sphinx, while Okonkwo beat a powerful fighter.

​Additionally, Okonkwo and Oedipus share a similar temperament – they both have tempers. They both experienced success through their own hands, and as a result, they are prideful. Oedipus displays his temper and his short-fuse when he murders a stranger because they tried to force him off the road. “In my rage, I lashed out at the driver, who was shoving me aside” (line 969-970) shows his volatility. When Teiresias says he is the murderer, he displays his anger once again when he says, “Get out, and pray the plague get rid of you! Off with you! Now!” (lines 518-520). He is even angrier when he believes Creon to be the conspirator. Even though Creon served him loyally and he is the brother to Jocasta. He even defends himself by saying that he does not want the throne because he has everything he could ever want already. Similar to Oedipus, Okonkwo has an even greater temper. He is known to act first because at the beginning of the novel, the narrator said, “He did pounce on people quite often. He had a slight stammer, and whenever he was angry and could not get his words out quickly enough, he would use his fists” (4). He would first jump to action and think about the consequences later, and this would always lead to trouble. Okonkwo is a man of action and he does not care about the Goddess because his temper was more important. He believes in his strength because if he does not, he would think himself weak. “But Okonkwo was not the man to stop beating somebody half-way through, not even for fear of a goddess” (3) displays how temper overcomes his rationality. Once he decides on doing something, he rushes headfirst into what he decided. All of Okonkwo’s actions and consequences stem from his temper, and Oedipus reacts with anger most of the time because he finds the truth ridiculous.

​Okonkwo and Oedipus’s personality is important factors because their attitudes towards their situation leads them to their inevitable fate. In the beginning, Oedipus was prideful because he believes that he can help his people despite any obstacles like how he solved the Sphinx problem. He believes that as a ruler, he should help his suppliants, and as a result, he looks for the truth. Despite being warned several times by several different people not to pursue the truth, he ends up doing so with doggedness. His pride makes him want to learn the truth with his own efforts. Through his efforts, he realizes that he had fulfilled the ultimate destiny of killing his father and marrying his mother. Okonkwo was similarly prideful because he was confident in his strength. At the beginning, the narrator mentions that he is known to pounce first a lot. And because of his pounce first mentality, he “drew his machete…and the man’s head lay beside his uniformed body” (204). He ends up being stuck in an irrecoverable position because he killed the messenger. He did not support the direction that his community was taking and as a result he acted first. This action would eventually lead him to take his own life by hanging. Their pride and fierce temper penetrate through logic, and this plays a part in their tragedy.

​The protagonists also share a similarity in the fact that they both experience a bad ending. Oedipus, towards the end of the play, takes drastic action and blinds himself because he finds out that he had married his mother and fathered several children from her. He had also found out that he had killed his father. Oedipus says, “In my wretched life, why should I have eyes when there was nothing sweet for me to see?” (lines 1331-1334) when he sees Jocasta’s body. Okonkwo, similarly, experiences a bad ending. He killed the messenger, and he knows that there would be a punishment, so he ends up killing himself. “Then they came to the tree from which Okonkwo’s body was dangling, and they stopped dead” (207) shows that Okonkwo did not want to be punished by them and he took matters into his own hands. A difference, however, is that Oedipus chose to live because he realized that he was a sinner and that he is going to punish himself. Okonkwo, however, kills himself because he did not want to deal with the legal consequences of killing the messenger.

​Another difference is between the relationships of the protagonists between the other characters. Oedipus remains filial to his foster parents, while Okonkwo is not filial to his father. Oedipus was distraught over his destiny because he learns that he would end up killing his father and marrying his mother. He ends up leaving his home because he feared it so much. “When Unoka died, he had taken no title at all, and he was heavily in debt. Any wonder then that his son Okonkwo was ashamed of him?” (8) shows Okonkwo’s ashamed feelings. He ends up believing that his father is inferior and he is “ashamed of him”, therefore he wanted nothing to do with him. His community, at least, “judges a man according to his worth and not according to the worth of his father” (8). He wanted to be strong and being strong means that anything weak would need to be corrected. “Dazed with fear, Okonkwo drew his machete and cut him down. He was afraid of being thought weak” (61) is the scene where Okonkwo kills Ikemefuna. As Ikemefuna.was screaming “My father, they have killed me” (61), Okonkwo callously executes him. This is an example of Okonkwo hating the fact that his people would think he is weak. Additionally, it is said in the novel that “He did not cry” (61), because crying would mean that he is weak. However, Oedipus is the opposite. He values his children and he loves Jocasta. When he did not know that she was his mother, Oedipus treats her with respect and listens.

Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, and Oedipus Rex by Sophocles are works of literature that are similar. Things Fall Apart draws influence from Oedipus through the character parallels and the character’s downfall. However, even though they are similarities, there are also differences. There are differences in the way that Okonkwo decides to accept his fate compared to Oedipus. There are also differences between their relationships with their close family. Sophocles made Oedipus live despite his tragedy because of his acceptance. Oedipus accepts that he made a grave error and that he would need to live with it for the rest of his life. However, Okonkwo does not accept his mistake in the way that Oedipus does. Okonkwo believes that he is right and the reason as to why he hung himself was to escape from the inevitable punishment that would be given to him for murdering the messenger. He could not accept the conclusion, and he does not believe that he was wrong, which is why he commits suicide. Despite the indication of influence from Oedipus Rex and the similarities, Things Fall Apart also has differences because of the difference in culture and life.

The idea of sex and death, both in early times and today, is a controversial idea. In the novels of tragedy, written in previous times, both sex and death are reflected in the texts as a conflict. But what exactly does sex and death represent? Many directly think that it only represents pleasure, but it is not just that; sex represents much more than that, it represents submission, conformity, control; while death represents the end of being, not only the physical being, but also the soul, the moral, the loss of sanity, etc. The loss is a form of death. In Oedipus Rex there are no sex scenes per se; although, in A Streetcar named Desire there is, but thanks to this action the characters and the course of the texts are affected.

In Oedipus Rex, the most obvious reference to sex is the fact that Oedipus slept with his mother / wife Jocasta. As it narrates the text and it is quite remarkable that in the times of Sophocles, in ancient Greece, man was the dominant sex and the woman was seen as weak, submissive sex. Along these lines, after work and masculine battles, Oedipus arrives ‘home’ and gets his prize, Jocasta. In this way, in the wake of having his prize, he has satisfied his obligations of virility and progresses toward becoming a dad to four kids. Oedipus, to put it plainly, utilizes sex as the fundamental goal, that, at that point, it prompts his fall. On the off chance that there were not given want for mastery and want to make life a chance to achieve, at that point history would not have a contention.

In the case of A Streetcar Named Desire, sex takes more control in the narrative. There are many more representations of sex as are the many adventures that Blanche had, in which she expresses the need for passion and a great desire to feel young, so her targets were younger men than her in order to satisfy that desire and evade fear of becoming old; like Jocasta, sex is used in the context of evading the loneliness of a dead lover, as an escape from reality. The sexual desires of Stanley, where it is quite obvious that his sexual desire is high, which, like Oedipus, the male sex is represented as the dominant sex. The scene of rape, which is the clearest and self-explanatory narrative, as far as the subject of sex is concerned. Returning to Greece, in Oedipus there are several representations of death.

The first two are deaths as such, the death of Laius, which occurs in the first loss of the text, when Oedipus, blinded by his fury, murders him. At first, this death at first sight seems insignificant but ends up being its biggest burden. The death of Jocasta resulted in suicide, which, happened while Oedipus was murdering Laius. That was the punishment to herself when she realized that she had committed a sin, by not feeling a pure body. The third death is not literal, but losing oneself is considered the death of being. After the death of Jocasta is when Oedipus loses himself, when he feels ‘dead’. It shows that after his actions, the one he used to be does not exist anymore. He lost his innocence, his power, his confidence, his courage, but he mainly lost his pride.

As moving along with death in A Streetcar Named Desire, it is represented in three situations: the first in the death of Blanche’s husband, his first love and to whom I dedicate his life to marry him. With time, she realizes that the love of her life is homosexual and she completely rejects that philosophy, for which he commits suicide and that pursues her, as a bad memory. The love of his life commits suicide and his eagerness to feel love dies together with him, her ability to love other men. It is worth mentioning that this death ends a cycle but marks the beginning of her whole life of torture. Blanche, influenced by so much mourning, leads her to the death of her sanity.

Since the death of her husband, she is not the same, her sanity has been dying little by little. With the progress of the story, we can see certain markers that show what has already been mentioned, how her mentally state is dying. The death of her sanity is marked in history when Stanley rapes her, that narrative event is the final marker of the death of her sanity. Madness takes control over Blanche after that. Sex and death today are common ideas, which, as in the texts can lead to situations as they occur both in Oedipus and in A Streetcar Named Desire . Both issues involve much more than we can see in the foreground. Perspectives of a situation can lead to noticing representations that can be seen at a glance, it is only a matter of analyzing between the text and the reality.

“Oedipus the King” by Sophocles reveals that human strength overpowers our weaknesses. An individual’s strength is perceived through emotions, actions, and the very essence of one’s character. The protagonist Oedipus has power, high status and a great influence in Thebes. Thebes is struck by another plague which is rapidly spreading through the city. The only way to destroy this plague is to seek out the individual who murdered King Laius. Oedipus begins the search of the truth. The people of Thebes admire Oedipus’ strength and come to him for help in overcoming the plague. They believe this epidemic has struck Thebes because the individual who killed Laius, remains alive and unpunished. Nevertheless, in the course of seeking the killer of Laius, Oedipus comes closer to the realization of the prophecy, which states that he will kill his father and wed his mother. This play explores the strength and weakness of Oedipus’ character. His strength is shown in his ability to put the needs of his citizens above all, by helping them in their time of need. His strength is also shown in persistence; as he is so eager to find out the truth and eventually does. Although Oedipus always has good intentions, his biggest weakness, is his excessive pride which eventually leads to his downfall. However, Oedipus makes many unalterable errors throughout the play, but he acknowledges these faults and holds himself accountable for it, which makes this play a optimistic rather than pessimistic.

One of the greatest strengths that oedipus possess’ is his ability to always put the needs of the Thebans above all. In the beginning of the play, there are numerous issues that are drastically affecting the city of Thebes. The Chorus comes to speak to Oedipus about the terrible conditions occurring in the city; at his Royal Palace. The Chorus leader stated “there is no way to count the pains we suffer. All our people are sick. There is no sword of thought, which will protect us. The fruits of our famous land do not ripen…” (Sophocles, 13) This statement reveals the pain and suffering the citizens are enduring, their crops are being destroyed, women are in agony when they are giving birth, and the plague has taken the lives of numerous individuals, all in all, the city of Thebes is in great distress. The courageous Oedipus decides to take serious action, as his number one priority is always the concern(s) of the citizens; by sending Creon, his brother-in-law to the Oracle of Delphi to find a solution to eliminate this issue.

Another great strength Oedipus possess’ is his persistence; which is a characteristic every leader should embody. Throughout the play, Oedipus is eager to know the truth about the murder and refuses to step back, he remains persistent until he figures it out. He had to forcefully take particular information out of multiple people, but in the end he found the truth that he was searching for. Jocasta warns oedipus and tells him to stop going after truth that he is anxiously seeking, Jocasta states “In god’s name, if you place any value on your life, don’t pursue the search. It is enough that i am sick to death.” (Sophocles 60) Oedipus being anxious to find out the truth states, “nothing will move me, i will find out the whole truth. ” (Sophocles 61) This statement reveals that Oedipus was not willing to change his mind and refuses to give up until he finds this truth. Furthermore, his persistence assisted Thebes in getting out of the plague because no one knows what the cause of the plague is and how to put an end to this fatal issue. Creon goes to Apollo and there he learns, that the individual who murdered Laius must be exiled out of Thebes in order for the plague to die out.

Although most individuals prefer to highlight their strengths; their weaknesses also plays a part in who they are. Throughout the play, Oedipus was oblivious to the truth about many of the events that occurs in his life. Having excessive pride has destructive effects on a person, however one only comes to the realization of this once they are stuck dealing with the consequences. Oedipus is an individual who is prideful and this ultimately leads to his destruction. This is revealed when he assumes he can change his fate upon discovering the prophecy by leaving Corinth. When the Corinthian messenger comes to inform Oedipus about the death of his adoptive father, Oedipus states “Apollo once announced that I am destined to… That is why for so many years I have lived far away from Corinth.” (Sophocles 54) He tries to avoid this prophecy from happening by leaving Corinth, but he does not realize that he cannot change what the Gods have written for him. He also states “I will never go to the city where my parents live,” (Sophocles 55) he is creating his own destiny thinking he can keep away from the incident that will take place but instead he is going towards fulfilling the prophecy.

The play Oedipus the King reveals that Oedipus’ strength outweighs his weaknesses. He demonstrates his strengths in many occasions throughout the play, such as aiding his people through the disastrous plague and not giving up on finding the individual who had to be killed in order for the plague to demolish. He also shows his weakness in the great pride he has. Oedipus thinks he can challenge the Gods and change his destiny but unfortunately he was not able to run away from his fate. Despite the fact that Oedipus made tragic mistakes, he learns and takes full responsibility for his devastating actions, which fundamentally makes this play an optimistic one rather than a pessimistic one.

Argumentative Essay

A butterfly flaps its wings in Chicago and a tornado occurs in Tokyo. The butterfly effect, the theory is an idea that a small change can make much bigger changes happen, that one small incident can have a big impact someday. In Greek literature, a greater part of the writing has elements of the butterfly effect theory throughout the stories. But in the realistic world, scientists do not believe anything that is not factual, provable, or visible to the eye. While Greek literature pieces such as The Odyssey and Oedipus Rex prove the butterfly effect theory to be true, Scientist Simon Laplace feels differently.

The main character of Oedipus Rex had a fate that was inevitable and hinged off of his actions. Oedipus, the king of Thebes, realizes that a terrible curse had ensued the Kingdom of Thebes, so he sent his brother Creon, to seek advice from Apollo, the god of truth and prophecy. Creon tells Oedipus that the curse will be dismantled if the murderer of the former king Laius is established and convicted. Oedipus subjects a series of citizens who were forced to cross-examination, including a blind prophet named Teiresias, who then reported dreadful news to Oedipus. “You have your eyes but see not where you are sin, nor where you live, nor whom you live with. Do you know who your parents are ? A deadly footed, double striking curse, from father to mother both, shall drive you forth out of this land with darkness on your eyes, that now have such straight vision. When you shall learn the secret of your marriage which steered you to a haven in this house, – – haven no haven, after the lucky voyage? Misery shall grind no man as it will you” ( Sophocles 482-501). Teiresias has just told Oedipus that he indeed is the murderer of Laius, and the domino effect of events that will happen once he finds out that his whole life is existentially a lie, that only misery awaits him. The lineup of these events can be connected to the butterfly effect theory because they are small events that lead to a big impact in the future. Oedipus finds out that his parents were Laius and Jocasta, which leads to Jocasta hanging herself for having sexual intercourse and offspring with her once-abandoned son. Oedipus then blinds himself, bringing darkness to his eyes that once had such straight vision, in horror and despair and is exiled from Thebes. His small actions led to his miserable demise, even though it was an inevitable fate, for it was prophesied. Considering the butterfly effect, if Oedipus’s fate was not for seen, would he still have had the same finality?

Scientist, Simon Laplace believes that the butterfly effect conflicts with the idea of nature and probability. Simon Laplace was a French scientist whose paintings became important to the development of mathematics, statistics, and philosophy. Laplace is remembered as one of the greatest scientists of the time, occasionally referred to as the French Isaac Newton. The writer of the butterfly effect theory, Edward Lorenz, challenges Laplace who states “ Unpredictability has no location in the universe ”(Vernon 5). If predictability had no area in the universe, and all laws of nature had been recognized, then not anything would stay familiar to human beings. Predictability is the constant repetition of a scenario or action or the capability to understand in advance what to expect. Assuming that predictability was prevalent throughout everyday life, no crimes would be committed for all the cops could predict when it would happen. No student would have bad grades for they could predict what the test questions would be and the answers. The element of predictability is a part of life, and without it the element of surprise would cease to exist, meaning everything would be known. The butterfly effect is a component of unpredictability that is needed to run everyday life. The saying “actions lead to consequences” is based off of the element of unpredictability, which is based off of the butterfly effect. The unknown is what the world revolves around, what would be the point of life if people knew everything already?

The main character of The Odyssey had a fate that was avoidable but was solely based off of his impulsive decisions. Odysseus, the king of Ithaca, has been away from his homeland for 10 years after the Trojan War and is struggling to return home. In Odysseus’s absence, his wife, Penelope, has been plagued by detrimental suitors, and his son, Telemachus, has matured. Odysseus and his group undergo many trials: they encounter monsters, witches, and gods, and are delayed multiple in instances. On his voyage of returning home, Odysseus and his group of men encounter an island known for the Cyclops they habitat and take shore to go look for food and other resources necessary for their survival. While on the island Odysseus encounters a Cyclops by the name of Polyphemus. Polyphemus makes a show of hospitality at first, but very soon turns hostile and eats two of Odysseus’s men, also holding the rest of Odysseus’s men and Odysseus hostage for future meals. Odysseus wants to kill Polyphemus but knows otherwise and executes a plan, that includes escaping on the underside of goats and blinding said Cyclops. Once the plan is carried out Odysseus and his men escape the island, unknowing to the curse that Polyphemus has just sent to be put upon them for their impulsive decisions. “ Hear me, Poseidon, blue-maned Earth-Holder, If you are the father you claim to be. Grant that Odysseus, son of Laertes, May never reach his home in Ithaca. But if he is fated to see his family again And return to his home and own native land, May he comes late, having lost all companions, In another’s ship, and find trouble at home” ( Homer 9-526). Odysseus’s actions against Polyphemus resulted in a time lengthening curse that got put on him to take even longer to get home and make it even more miserable. The curse put on him affected the actions he took and fit in with the curse for it was put upon him and was in play. The first sign of the curse was his men being disobedient and opening a bag of winds they were not supposed to open, pushing them back on the sea to Aeolia where they had started. They had lost all the progress they had made, which lengthened the amount of time needed to get back to Ithaca, for they had to start over on their voyage. The butterfly effect is shown clearly as for his actions towards Polyphemus led to the delay of his homecoming. Instances like this kept happening throughout the ocean voyage back to Ithaca making it extremely difficult to get back easily, if only Odysseus’s had not gone on the Cyclops Island to get necessities, if only he hadn’t stabbed Polyphemus in the eye, maybe he would’ve gotten back to Ithaca faster. Odysseus’s fate was avoidable but was unpredictable and as a result of the Butterfly effect. If people put more thought into their impulsive decisions what would be the difference in the outcome, and how would that change your fortune?

While Greek literature pieces like The Odyssey and Oedipus Rex show the butterfly impact theory to be correct and effective, Scientist Simon Laplace feels differently. Oedipus and Odysseus show how your actions cause consequences, even now that is a saying people use currently, for it applies to everything. If Simon Laplace was alive right now, he would realize that unpredictability is what holds life together, and without it everything would already be known. The butterfly effect theory is the sensitive dependence on introductory conditions in which a small change in one case can result in large differences to a later case. The theory is not only shown just in Greek literature but in all aspects of life, if one looks closely enough.

Annotated Bibliography

Hull, Robert. ‘Hamartia and Heroic Nobility in Oedipus Rex.’ Philosophy and Literature, vol. 17 no. 2, 1993, pp. 286-294. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/phl.1993.0047

The article is written by Robert Hull, and he argues that one’s consequences are already displaced by their character flaws at the beginning of the story, as opposed to those who believe that Oedipus will cause his consequences by his own actions. This article begins with a discussion about how readers are taught to think about human morality and life when reading a tragedy written by Sophocles. He discusses how Aristotle uses the idea of hamartia to dictate what direction the action in a tragedy should be taken in, while also containing the elements a normal tragedy would have. Hull then cites a passage where Aristotle mentions that a tragedy should be about a character falling from grace to doom such as “Oedipus Rex”, where the protagonist falls into that doom because of a certain mistake, rather than them being cruel or morally unjust and then being punished for it. Although, Hull states that while Oedipus is neither a cruel nor totally good-hearted character, he still sinned and was punished even though it was due to a character flaw, rather than a mistake, while asking if Aristotle would think the same. He states that if a tragedy is to function properly, the character must be punished undeservingly. Hamartia used in this situation cannot be confused with something, such as, the character making a moral mistake and then being punished for it. The audience will have an emotional response and then be angry with the character for being so unjust, is what Aristotle thought. If hamartia is used, the character will be a victim of a flaw that does not involve their morals, and does not allow them to be blamed, which is why Oedipus is a properly written character. He goes into details about the doubts of Aristotle’s and Sophocle’s definitions of hamartia and how it relates to tragedy. Hull then discusses how Oedipus’ flaws and actions are due to his hamartia and how Sophocles wrote Oedipus as someone who ironically brought his doom into the light through his refusal to acknowledge the truth, his pride, and other flaws which happen to cause his fate to be displaced. He also compares other stories to the story of “Oedipus Rex” and how the characters in these stories all had a similar fate, which was them paying a great price for something they wanted. This article was intended for those who believe consequence is purely based on action, especially in a story such as “Oedipus Rex”. Hull’s thesis is unfortunately not met all the way despite the textual evidence provided, which does make it credible, however, he does not have enough evidence to prove that Oedipus was going to be brought to his doom regardless of what events occured. The story is told more in a point of view where Oedipus causes his own demise through his own flaws. This article is useful partly because it supports the argument that Oedipus was brought to his demise through pride and stubbornness, but mainly because it argues against the point that Oedipus brought his demise on himself instead of just staying at Corinth, rather than it being out of his control. The article was very brave to question what Aristotle thought about tragic tales and how they should function, while also going against what most present day philosophers think, which is what made it enjoyable to read.

Ford, Randal. “Why We Fail: How Hubris, Hamartia, and Anagnosis Shape Organizational Behavior.” Human Resource Development Quarterly, vol. 17, no. 4, 2006, pp. 481–489., doi: 10.1002/hrdq.1187.

This article was written by Randal Ford, and he describes how a corporation is set up to fail when its workers have the tendency to fall victim to hubris, hamartia, and “anagnosis”. He starts off by explaining that if an organization runs into a failure at any point, it must recover and learn from it, and that workers must let go of their ego in order to do so. Randal created the term “anagnosis”, meaning “without knowledge”, which is compared to Aristotle’s term “anagnorisis”, meaning “recognition”. When workers are victims of anagnosis, hamartia, and hubris, they fail. He then discusses the difference between hamartia and hubris, where hamartia is a flaw of a character, and hubris is the ego to compare oneself to that of a god. He puts these two terms into a triangle with anagnosis, and explains how they relate through the unwillingness to listen, to a narrow perspective, and then to ignorance, which hinders the workers’ progress and again, sets them up to fail when exposed to it. Examples of hamartia and hubris are then listed, and he discusses how isolation leads to anagnosis. He then talks about “Nucor Corporation” and how it almost fell into economic collapse, but saved itself through pay cuts and less work scheduling. The company heads described the error of their ways to their workers and were able to create a good relationship with them through learning from their mistakes. They let go of their egos and worked towards one unified goal for everyone. He then explains that other managers try to mimic this, but instead fail at doing so, causing the costs and overproduction to rise. This is due to these different managers seeing this strategy as something from their own ego and perspective, and refusing to listen to actual logic and reason. They are people who have fallen victim to hubris, hamartia, and anagnosis. When working as a group, and letting go of ego, the company will prosper. This article is intended for those who need to be exposed to the dangers of hubris, hamartia, and anagnosis, and how it can set you up to fail as a worker or organization, while also educating them on how it takes effect on a person as a whole. It is useful because it supports the idea of hamartia and hubris being a huge danger, which correlates perfectly with the events in “Oedipus Rex”. This can show readers that Oedipus set himself up for failure through these mistakes. When you don’t let go of your ego (hamartia), self-comparison to a god (hubris), and limited perspective of life (hamartia), you are prone to fail, and since Oedipus did not do that, he was brought to his demise. He thought he could outsmart the gods and take control of his destiny with his huge ego. Ford met the criteria of his thesis that companies can be set up to fail from those three dangers through strong reasoning, comparisons to Aristotle’s philosophy, and provided examples of incidents where companies recovered and avoided that triangle of danger, which provides the strong credibility of the article. It was shockingly philosophic and thought-provoking for an economic-esque piece of work, and that is what made it enjoyable to read.