Oedipus Absurd

[NickAdams]

Am I the only one who finds the story of Oedipus highly improbable? I've made the same argument against films, like TheTerminator and the third Harry Potter, but no one sees a problem.

The oracle saw what was to come and spoke of it. Oedipus fulfilled his so-called destiny, by hearing of it. If the oracle had said nothing, Oedipus would have remained where he was. The prophecy was not a true fortune, but the result of Oedipus hearing said prophecy. The prophecy causes the incident and not the other way around. I enjoyed the story, but I see this as a major flaw in the work.

[Virgil]

Yes, of course it's improbable. But that's part of the point, I think. The fates/gods have put together this scenario and it will happen. It shows the lack of ability to change one's destiny. The notion of free will or self realization seems to be lacking in the Clsasical world view.

[NickAdams]

I think it has less to do with destiny and more to do with the control of the Gods. I think it reveals that free will is an illusion. Destiny would have been Oedipus killing his father, with or with out the prophecy. The prophecy Oedipus is told is the result of being told the prophecy. Oedipus falls because of the Gods. This is less of a tragedy about Oedipus and more of the tragedy of man (of course this is assuming that a deity exist).

[Virgil]

I think it has less to do with destiny and more to do with the control of the Gods. I think it reveals that free will is an illusion. Destiny would have been Oedipus killing his father, with or with out the prophecy. The prophecy Oedipus is told is the result of being told the prophecy. Oedipus falls because of the Gods. This is less of a tragedy about Oedipus and more of the tragedy of man (of course this is assuming that a deity exist).

I would agree with that Nick. I was trying to say that there are overwhelming forces that a person cannot break free of.

[NickAdams]

I just don't see how destiny is involved. The Greek Gods are not as abstract as other deities, and they have qualities that give them a human presence. They are far from objective and as such their involvment in human affairs seem against destiny. Though we can't manipulate the future, the Gods can. Destiny seems like good PR. The Gods say this is destiny it is natural, like many dictators.

[Virgil]

I just don't see how destiny is involved. The Greek Gods are not as abstract as other deities, and they have qualities that give them a human presence. They are far from objective and as such their involvment in human affairs seem against destiny. Though we can't manipulate the future, the Gods can. Destiny seems like good PR. The Gods say this is destiny it is natural, like many dictators.

Well, the destiny factors in because it's prophesized. I don't think one can ignore that theme completely.

[kandaurov]

Interesting! Well, the way I see it Oedipus doesn't fall because of the Gods, but due to his hybris, like it happens with virtually all greek tragic characters. His easily aroused temper, his violent impulse of killing the King (who was really his father, as you know) was his perdition. He brought his fate upon himself by killing complete strangers over a trifle. By this interpretation, destiny and free will kind of go hand in hand.

The greatness of this story, for me, is that he meets his destiny by trying to run away from it.

[NickAdams]

Well, the destiny factors in because it's prophesized. I don't think one can ignore that theme completely.

I agree. I can't ignore it at all, it has become my focus. I think it is a valid tool, but not as a catapult. Of course this is a modern view and me being picky. I can't expect ancient Greek to be bothered with time paradoxes, lol. But as it is now, where the prophecy is the motivator of either pleasure or fear, to which the character avoids or moves towards, self-fulfilling prophecies and positive imagery seem the theme.

[NickAdams]

Interesting! Well, the way I see it Oedipus doesn't fall because of the Gods, but due to his hybris, like it happens with virtually all greek tragic characters. His easily aroused temper, his violent impulse of killing the King (who was really his father, as you know) was his perdition. He brought his fate upon himself by killing complete strangers over a trifle. By this interpretation, destiny and free will kind of go hand in hand.

The greatness of this story, for me, is that he meets his destiny by trying to run away from it.

Do you think it would have been diefferent if he didn't hear the prophecy?

[kandaurov]

I know it's easy to just say that no matter what he would have done after he had heard the prophecy, it would still have been carried out, because it was his Destiny. However, that's the way it was back then. Only centuries later, with playwrights like Shakespeare, was human fault the most important tragic factor.

Well then, let's see. Fact: once something is prophetized in a greek tragedy, it's sure to happen, no matter what; now, if there weren't a prophecy,... well, maybe he had to hear the prophecy, maybe the prophecy itself is part of the Destiny.

I know that to the 21th century mind all this is debatable, but we must remember that they believed in Destiny, in the three Moirae, which were deities per se, external forces, far less abstract than we might conceive it now. I hate to sound like I'm oversimplifying it, but the thing is that I don't think the greeks questioned Destiny, it was part of their beliefs, and for that reason they wouldn't problematize this matter as you do, they'd say "it's Destiny, what can you do about it?", much like some nowadays justify something they can't really explain or sometimes even comprehend by saying "God works in mysterious ways".

I must thank you for the 20 minutes of brain activity you gave me today, and I hope my answer makes any sense to you.

[sprinks]

I think there was many factors that may have altered the possible outcome as well, such as what if Oedipus' foster parents had told him the truth? Would he have stayed there knowing that he would be safe from the prophecy?

Then of course if he had not killed Laius on the road it would have been different.

And what if Laius and Jocasta had have kept Oedipus with them from birth? Perhaps then if they all made everyone aware of what the prophecy was it wouldn't have happened. But then again Jocasta was only originally aware of the murder and not the incest from what I read.

We just did King Oedipus in Lit at school, and then we did tutorials and I'm pretty sure one of the other students in my class talked about how almost everything was a result of the Greek gods. The gods created the prophecy, the gods placed the shepards there to ensure Oedipus' survival, the gods also placed the drunk man there, the one that tells Oedipus about the prophecy. Apparently the gods were not content with Oedipus not fulfilling the prophecy so they used people etc. to make it happen.

I do find it a bit stupid though that the gods let it all go on for 15 years before cursing Thebes with plague and famine as a result of Oedipus' sins though.

[NickAdams]

I know it's easy to just say that no matter what he would have done after he had heard the prophecy, it would still have been carried out, because it was his Destiny. However, that's the way it was back then. Only centuries later, with playwrights like Shakespeare, was human fault the most important tragic factor.

Well then, let's see. Fact: once something is prophetized in a greek tragedy, it's sure to happen, no matter what; now, if there weren't a prophecy,... well, maybe he had to hear the prophecy, maybe the prophecy itself is part of the Destiny.

I know that to the 21th century mind all this is debatable, but we must remember that they believed in Destiny, in the three Moirae, which were deities per se, external forces, far less abstract than we might conceive it now. I hate to sound like I'm oversimplifying it, but the thing is that I don't think the greeks questioned Destiny, it was part of their beliefs, and for that reason they wouldn't problematize this matter as you do, they'd say "it's Destiny, what can you do about it?", much like some nowadays justify something they can't really explain or sometimes even comprehend by saying "God works in mysterious ways".

I must thank you for the 20 minutes of brain activity you gave me today, and I hope my answer makes any sense to you.

You're welcome. This started from a speech I gave in college as to why Harry Potter should only be considered a trilogy; and yes, he dies.

My question: should we approach the play as if we lived in Sophocles time, or with all the progress we have made as a people? I guess that goes for criticism. Do we try to figure out the authors intention, which is difficult to be certain of, or do judge the internal logic of the composition.

I think there was many factors that may have altered the possible outcome as well, such as what if Oedipus' foster parents had told him the truth? Would he have stayed there knowing that he would be safe from the prophecy?

Then of course if he had not killed Laius on the road it would have been different.

And what if Laius and Jocasta had have kept Oedipus with them from birth? Perhaps then if they all made everyone aware of what the prophecy was it wouldn't have happened. But then again Jocasta was only originally aware of the murder and not the incest from what I read.

We just did King Oedipus in Lit at school, and then we did tutorials and I'm pretty sure one of the other students in my class talked about how almost everything was a result of the Greek gods. The gods created the prophecy, the gods placed the shepards there to ensure Oedipus' survival, the gods also placed the drunk man there, the one that tells Oedipus about the prophecy. Apparently the gods were not content with Oedipus not fulfilling the prophecy so they used people etc. to make it happen.

I do find it a bit stupid though that the gods let it all go on for 15 years before cursing Thebes with plague and famine as a result of Oedipus' sins though.

I can't take destiny as an answer, but I do accept the Gods manipulation. We can say that the Gods were upset, because Oedipus had avoided his destiny for so long and forced it. Which is interesting, because free-will becomes something that is pitted against the Gods.

It's like telling someone to step on a banana peel and then torturing them for slipping. The Gods have always been sore losers (like Athena punishing Arachne).

[Virgil]

My question: should we approach the play as if we lived in Sophocles time, or with all the progress we have made as a people? I guess that goes for criticism. Do we try to figure out the authors intention, which is difficult to be certain of, or do judge the internal logic of the composition.

My approach to literature has always been to do our best in ascertaining the author's intention, but keeping the scope open to possibilities that he may not have realized that are derivitive from the action. I'm not usually comfortable with interpretations that are not within the possibility of the author's time and place.

[NickAdams]

My approach to literature has always been to do our best in ascertaining the author's intention, but keeping the scope open to possibilities that he may not have realized that are derivitive from the action. I'm not usually comfortable with interpretations that are not within the possibility of the author's time and place.

Very valid. Wouldn't that give amateur writers a one-up on casual readers? Only a learned reader could approach a text this way. This is something Joyce would approve of, but it seems unnatural to me. I don't mean that negatively, but are far removed from the essence. I define essence, by what a savant produces. I have heard of musical, visual and encyclopedic savants; however, I have not come across a storytelling savant. Not to say they don't exist. Excuse me Virgil, I have no idea where I'm going with this. I've been writing off and on for the last hour. I'm at work and have been interrupted constantly. Consider this a ramble.

[Virgil]

Very valid. Wouldn't that give amateur writers a one-up on casual readers? Only a learned reader could approach a text this way. This is something Joyce would approve of, but it seems unnatural to me. I don't mean that negatively, but are far removed from the essence. I define essence, by what a savant produces. I have heard of musical, visual and encyclopedic savants; however, I have not come across a storytelling savant. Not to say they don't exist. Excuse me Virgil, I have no idea where I'm going with this. I've been writing off and on for the last hour. I'm at work and have been interrupted constantly. Consider this a ramble.

I've seen a couple of idiot savants around work. I'm sure you have some at your place too.