What you don't know won't hurt you...

Sometimes Truth has a very uncanny probability that it will cause more harm than good.  I would say that Truth is ultimately good because anything other than the truth is known as deception, and deceptive behaviors thrive on lies.  Therefore, that which is true is more coveted than that which is full of deceit.  In Oedipus' case, Truth promoted pain and regret; however, if Oedipus had known Truth sooner, then it is obvious that his fate could have been altered.  Truth was the ultimate source of good for Oedipus, but ignorance proved to be his ultimate demise.  Eventually, his fate became inevitable, and he chose to react to his interaction with Truth.  Although his destiny was stained by the blood of his father, Oedipus did fulfill his prophesied fate.  The bigger question is whether fate is an individual direction for life or a cluster of interchangeable paths that are selected by the decisions made in life.  If this is true, then perhaps Oedipus could have received knowledge in a more mature manner and spared himself the pain.

Doomed to Fate

Although it can't really be argued whether or not Oedipus killed the king, I couldn't help but feeling sorry for him at how his situation turned out. Every single person that knew about the prophesy except the one shepherd that had pity for Oedipus did all they could to avoid the fate that the prophesy spoke of. Yet no matter how hard Oedipus tried to do the right thing, he could not escape that fate. When I first read this I could not help but think that this is simply unfair, that no matter what one does  in life, nothing they do can change what will inevitably happen. Still, that got me thinking. Does it work the same way for us? I know that question opens up a massive debate on predestination and free will and the space time continuum and that sort of thing, so I won't even go down that road. But one thing that this story did remind me of was at the end of the republic when Socrates tells the story of Er. When everyone is gathered in the common place and picks their new fate, that is it. No changing, no trading, no doing nothing except intentionally or unintentionally seeing that fate through to the day you die. I couldn't help but laugh for a second that if this was true for Oedipus, then man did he mess that decision up. Either way, I am a firm believer that this sort of thing is exactly what we as humans are not intended nor able to understand. Whatever will happen will happen, but we still make the choices.

Fate

                Certainly a major theme throughout this semester in honors English has been the topic of fate.  In Homer's writing Achilles may choose his fate, but once he takes a path, it cannot be changed.  God sets people's fate in the Old Testimate, but does not always reveal how someone will reach His end goal.  Even in Republic, Plato says that some people made of gold and silver metals should be fated to rule, and that others must be ruled over.  The idea of people's lives being acted on by a higher power has always been a very popular topic and still is today.

                Now, in our reading about Oedipus we see even more having to do with fate.  In this story we come to understand just how powerful, binding, and inescapable fate truly is.  The king, queen, and Oedipus all try to find ways to escape the terrible prophesy told to them by the seer, but their efforts are all in vein.  However, the three did try as hard as they could to escape their fate.  The parents tie up the feet of their child and leave him to die, and Oedipus leaves who he believes to be his true parents and travels as far away from them as he possibly could.  No matter what they do, the prophesy comes true.

                My question is, there seems to be all sorts of different variations of fate.  Some can be changed or are less powerful, and then there are ones like the one in this story who can't change their fate no matter what they do.  So are there different types of fate, or just one level or variation.  I think there must be different intensities of fate, because how else come some people be able to change it and others not.  Could it be that it is just up to the writer?  I just think it's interesting how different stories about fate can be.

I commented on Emily LaForce's blog "The White Suite"

-Susan Berner

Outrunning Fate Part 2

So we have seen throughout all the Greek writings that fate is highly important.  No matter how hard you try, you cannot outrun fate.  Every characters attempt, especially in the Oedipus play, always fails without a doubt.  For example, in the Oedipus play every time a character attempted to change their fate it only pushed it more forward to actually happening.  I wonder if the characters stopped trying to actually change their fate and embraced it or were more careful about their fates maybe it might actually change on it's own.  I say this because if Oedipus's parents actually kept him knowing he was fated to kill his own parents and marry his mother then all that probably would not have happened.  If Oedipus grew up with his actual parents and then moved out when he got older because he realized his fate then he would not have wound up marrying his own mother.  He also may not have killed his parents, but that is just an assumption.  However, like I said in a previous post about outrunning fate that no matter how brave or important you are, if you are handed a bad fate you will fight as hard as possible to change it even if it means sending your own child away like Jocasta did or moving away from your supposed parents like Oedipus did.  

Also, if Jocasta's husband died and she knew her son was fated to marry his mother and Oedipus knowing he was fated to marry his mother why would they get remarried/married?  For Oedipus's sake he was unaware that his mother wasn't actually his biological mother, but I would have been a little bit more careful if I was given that sort of fate.  Jocasta attempted this by trying to keep Oedipus from finding out the truth but by that point it was already too late.  I guess it goes to show that humans are terrible at embracing their fate.  I almost feel like the whole point of fate is to try to disprove it only to make it actually happen.  If Hector actually fought Achilles instead wearing himself out by running around a wall three or four times maybe he would have actually won, but that wasn't his fate. Unfortunately, to Oedipus's dismay his fate eventually came true just like Hector's.


p.s. commented on emilylaforce's The White Suit

Knowledge of Fate

We say ignorance is bliss, and to an extent, I agree. I question what would have happened if Oedipus had never learned the true identity of his parents. Though Jocasta seemed as though she already had a suspicion of what had happened, would it have been any different if he had not looked into who his parents were? However, an even better question is whether or not his knowledge of the original prophecies would have changed the outcome. Why was Jocasta informed of Oedipus's fate in the first place. Is knowing what is going to happen in the future really any of our business? If she was not forewarned of the dangers of Oedipus, would she have given him away? If she had not given him away, would he have lusted over her enough to kill his own father? Its the same way with Macbeth. If the witches had not reviled the prophecies to him, he would not have taken matters into his own hands. The same principles apply with Jocasta she should not have taken it upon herself to try to change fate. Knowledge of fate is more dangerous than being left in the dark.

PS. I commented on Meghan's

Darkness

As we venture through Oedipus, I can't help but wonder about the concept of darkness or blindness. The key question in this blog post that I want to raise and hopefully have some discussion is "what does darkness symbolize?" throughout literature, darkness has come to symbollize a good deal of different things that transcend far pass just "the absence of light".

In Shakespeare's Macbeth, Lady Macbeth says, 

"Come, thick night,

And pall thee in the dunnest smoke of hell,

That my keen knife see not the wound it makes,

Nor heaven peep through the blanket of the dark

To cry “Hold, hold!”

She calls for darkness as a source of camouflage to hide Macbeth's actions from God. As daylight shines light and allows one to see, darkness conceals. Darkness hides all ill deeds. Many people who have fear of darkness state that it isn't the actual state of being in darkness that frightens them, but the things that hide in the dark. In biblical terms, light often portrays righteousness. Jesus calls Christians the "light of the world". However, darkness represents sin. One of the Devil's many nicknames is "The Prince of Darkness."

In Plato's The Allegory of the Cave, darkness symbolizes ignorance. The shadows of the fire burning behind the prisoners symbolizes a false sense of truth. It's an illusion of the truth brought about by the shadows of the darkness. Meanwhile, the sun and the light it's bring is the reality of the truth. the process of being brought out of the darkness into the light is a literal enlightenment where one goes from the lies of darkness and is brought into the truth.

Oedipus brings a different meaning to darkness however. Though it was brought about in the harshest of circumstances, Oedipus' blindness is brought about by his own willingness. In the other two situations discussed, darkness is used with a negative connotation. However, Oedipus has a positive use for it. He would rather live in darkness than live in a world where he has to stare his sin in the face. Darkness in Oedipus manner is a good thing because it keeps him away from his sin. It creates a barrier between him and what he has done. 

p.s. commented on Gary's "What's the Point."

the Power of Words

On page 169, lines 1349-1356 of the book, Oedipus says that he wishes the Herdsman had left him to die as a small child; that it would've bettered everyones lives, that none of this would have had to happen had it been so. The Chorus then follows by saying they agreed with him, they wished that upon him too. What really struck me today, while reading this, was how powerful words can be to someone. To have negatives words spoken to you all the time, and nothing ever affirming, leads to discouragement and unhappiness. Even if Oedipus hadn't had feelings like that about himself, he never should've been told that things would be better if he'd have died. As human beings, we need affirming, uplifting, and happy words spoken into our lives, daily, hourly. If someone ever gets to the point where they wish to themselves that they'd never been born, or had never been allowed to live, that is a serious and very sad issue that should be remedied.
I can't help but think of this...your words can make someone, or break someone. And no matter how hard your day has been, or how much you have going on in your life, which should you choose to do? Make them? Or break them?

P.s. I commented on Mallory Searcy's "Fate VS. Human Nature"

Whats the point?

     In all of the other epics we have read I have been able to easily pick out the moral or point of the story but to be quite honest I don't see the moral of the story here. Over all I think this story was pretty strait forward, Oedipus killed the king and then suffered the consequences. Then there was the mess about Oedipus and his mother/wife, I mean really? What is it there for other than to be gross? I don't understand. Please someone enlighten me, I would greatly appreciate it.

PS: I commented on Emily Laforce's post "white suit"

The White Suit

I don't know about you, but the thing that stuck out to me the most in the Oedipus movie was Oedipus' white suit. I find it ironic that when his people are starving that he's wearing this snazzy white suit and giant cloak that could probably provide 3 townspeople with a new wardrobe. But upon further reflection I wondered if there was some symbolism in this. Is Oedipus really guilty or does his ignorance spare him part of the blame? Albeit, he did kill a man, but I wonder how much of it all is his fault and how much lies with his parents. (P.S. Commented on Danielle's)

Aaaaand it's working again! (Degrees of Death)

So for some reason,I can post blogs again. Huzzah!

Degrees of death

When Oedipus interrogates the herdsman,the herdsman is fearful for his own life. He says that it would've been better for him to die by some other means than for him to tell Oedipus the truth. Oedipus then tells him that it certainly would have been. He implies that his death will be worse off than it would have if he had simply died before telling Oedipus the truth. This leads to the question: Are there degrees of death? I believe so. We certainly covered this when we studied the Iliad and the Odyssey. It's once again brought up in Oedipus. I'm not really sure how high a degree of death can go however. Perhaps the most disgraceful? Example: Dying in battle as opposed to dying of old age in your comfy bed. Reminds me a bit of the Scandinavian Viking's mental picture of death. Fame never dies and what not. It's slightly depressing to me because everyone just seems to embrace death in Greek culture. Not sure if this is the case in this instance, but it certainly caught my attention.

-Brian Burkhardt

A Need to Know

If Oedipus had simply found contentment in the way things were, the story would have likely had a much happier ending. However, there was a desire in him to know the truth.  Not just generic truth, but the truth of his own origin.  I feel like this is a basic desire in all of human kind.

I was not adopted, but I have heard that there is often a desire at some point in life, whether acted upon or not, to know where they came from.  Furthermore, those of us who know our biological parents have a tendency to want to know about our ancestors.  My question is, why is this so ingrained in us?  Does our genealogy really have any bearings on who we are? Are we not more of a product of how we are raised? (that question is for the psychologists, I suppose).  Ultimately, it is in our nature to search and dig when we realize that we are ignorant, but even though we may not want to admit it, are there somethings that we would be better off not knowing?

-Jamie Kilpatrick

Commented on Jasmine's "Is Fate the Enemy" 

Sorrow for a Fallen Hero

Poor Oedipus, I don’t say this about heroes normally, but I feel Oedipus deserves the pity! He begins genuinely wanting to help his people, and he ends the same way. He doesn’t try to shy away from the consequences of his actions, even though he would be perfectly justified to do so. His killing of his father was in self-defense, but he still exiles himself. He gouges out his eyes because he feels genuine remorse for what he’s done and believes he must punish himself. So why, after everything he is willing to do, does Apollo not take pity on him and allow him to stay in the city? What is it about Oedipus that makes Apollo hate him so much? Why is Fate against him? Perhaps there is an answer to these questions, but I sure don’t know what they are. I know that I feel sorry for Oedipus, for his children, for Thebes, and even for Jocasta since she must face the consequences of trying to avert Fate before she kills herself. The story of Oedipus has bothered me ever since I read it my Senior year in High School and I don’t think today helped clear up any of the burning questions I have. In fact, I believe I now have more questions than I did before. But that’s what Honors is, and this is why I enjoy the program so much!

Tantum e tenebris receptum constabit,

~Meghan

P.S. I commented on Jasmine’s post “Is Fate the Enemy?”

The Shepherd's Sin

     The shepherd is one of the most interesting characters in Sophocles, to me.  I do not know whether to cast the man as a villain or a hero. Without him we would have no Oedipus, yet with him Oedipus is condemned to his fate.

     When Oedipus is left for dead, the shepherd takes compassion on him and saves him. Is this his crime? How can we condemn him for saving an innocent life?  If anything surely he was being just, no god had condemn or commanded Oedipus to die. Yet, the shepherd disobeyed his mistress's orders. From my point of view I cannot accuse him of villainy, saving a innocent child who was left to die in the wilderness, and giving him a chance at life. 

     However, later in life the shepherd's valiant deed comes back to haunt him. The shepherd, loyal and faithful to his king, Laius, is the only one who escapes Oedipus. At this point, does the shepherd know the man who has killed his king is Oedipus?  He does eventually figure out who this man is, though. Yet, he doesn't speak up, he never says anything. Especially, to the queen.  This is because he knows his own life is endangered.  This is where I say the crime is committed. The shepherd lets his fear control what is right. He knows that Oedipus is a strong man and a killer and he knows that the queen has all right to kill him.  His fear commands silence, his silence leads to ruin of his city and his master's house.  The lesson I learn from the shepherd is that silence is against something wrong, is just as bad as condoning it. Also if one let's fear stop them from standing up for what is right, than evil has already conquered.

Commented on Tinsley's post.

Silence: Villainy or Wisdom?

The Shepherd has a part unlike any other in this play.  All throughout the readings of Oedipus Rex, I was contemplating the question we were all discussing: depending on the evil, is it actually better to remain in ignorance than to know truth?  However, there was a deeper question to consider as well: If you know the truth, do you let others remain in ignorance of it?  And if so, does that make you the villain in your story?  In the play, the Shepherd knows all along the horrors which are occurring, and the evil deeds which could potentially happen.  In a round about way, he is actually responsible for them all. So what should he have done?  Was it wrong for him to save the young child?  What about when he came with the word of the King’s death, and saw his slayer sitting on the throne?  Was it wrong for him to stay silent then?  I think even more critical and difficult to ask than whether it’s better to personally remain ignorant is the question of letting other’s remain in ignorance.  When is it the right thing to leave things be and let the people around you live their lives, not knowing the evil you do? When are you manipulating fate by remaining silent, and does your silence condemn or condone the actions of others?

P.S. Commented on Lauren's "Irony in Blindness."

Fate vs. Human Nature

Is it not strange that whenever a person tries to defy a prophecy that it ultimately comes true. I believe that when the oracle gives its message that it already knows about their responces. I guess human natue is not hard to predict. If someone does something once, then they are more likely to do it again. Oedepius is in my pity, he had no idea what was going on until it was too late. I do not care much for most of the other characters, but I guess one must hold some kind of respect towards the guy for carrying out his word in the end and not just trying to deny or cover it up. The whole story seems to let us in to our human nature, its not pleasant but it is the truth. Though our situation hopefully is not at all like Oedipus, we all have faults and must make desicions that may not be pleasant or easy. That is life.

Irony in Blindness

   The tragedy of Oedipus Rex is one full of intense irony. The fact that Oedipus kills his father and marries his mother is twistedly ironic, but ironic all the same. I pity Oedipus and his situation because his entire life has been a lie and now that the truth has come into light, he has to pay the price for his ignorance. But even though I pity him, I do not pity his crime. He did not know that it was his father that he slew but the simple fact that he murdered is what I cannot justify. I think part of the reason why he does not believe Tiresias is because he is blinded by pride and simply cannot accept that he is the cause of his cities decline. The other part I think is because he thought no one would ever find out.
   When Tiresias accuses Oedipus of the murder of the late Laius, Tiresias says, "I say you know not in what worst of shame/ You live together with those nearest you,/ And see not in what evil plight you stand" (14). Then Oedipus accuses Tiresias of not telling the truth and says he is blind, " in eyes, and ears, and mind" (14)! How ironic is it that when Oedipus realizes what he has done that he gouges his own eyes out and becomes one of the physically blind? The consequences of his sins are too much for him to bear. When he sees his wife/mother hanging he, "[snatched] from her dress gold pins/ Wherewith she was adorned, he lifted them,/ And smote the nerves of his own eyeballs, saying/ Something like this-- that they should see no more/ Evils like those he had endured or wrought" (45).

Maybe if Oedipus had not been 'blinded' before by pride and ignorance, he would have been able to keep his sight in the end.

P.S.- I commented on Amanda's blog.

Is Fate the Enemy?

In class, Dr. Schuler asked if there was an enemy in this story. I heard lots of different answers, but in my opinion fate is the real enemy. In ancient Greece, not even the Gods could free you of your fate, so if Oedipus' parents had not abandoned him how would his fate be different? Is his fate ultimatley to be abandoned by his parents, therefore it sets a stage for him to kill them, or would his fate be different if they had not abandoned him. I kind of believe that because his parents abandoned him, his fate was their punishment. They tried to change fate so they were ultimately punished, but due to his guilt so was oedipus. All in all, fate is playing dirty, no matter what happens Oedipus is dealt a bad hand by fate. even if his mother did not commit suicide nor did he kill her, he would still be miserable due to that fact he laid with his mother. I do not believe he would be able to just ignore it and proceed with his life, but how could anyone that had any sense of morals. I don't want to say his mother deserved what happened, but once she found out that she had married her son, she should have told him. That's just my opinion, Fate seems to be the ultimate enemy, but his mother is no angel either. P.S. I commented on Amanda's Ignorance Is Not Bliss

Ignorance is not bliss...

"Time who sees all has found you out

against your will; judges your marriage accursed 

begetter and begot at one in it."

Is ignorance bliss? Would it have been better if Oedipus never knew the identity of his parents? They abandoned him because of a prophecy that he would kill them... but if they had not abandoned him they would not have died the way they did. Oedipus fulfilled the destructive prophecy when his mother killed herself because she feared Oedipus discovering the truth of her duplicity and abandonment. She that he knew as his wife... was also his mother. How wrong is that?? Regardless, she did not know her own son when she met him and so she married him. However, if they had begun with truth, his father would still be alive as well. Because Oedipus did not know his father when he met him on the road, he killed him in hasty anger. Since he killed his father, that left his mother a widow whom he later took as his wife. So maybe ignorance isn't bliss, but there's a lesson in truth to be learned from this story. Truth brings life while falsehood harbors death.

"Count no mortal happy till he has passed the final limit of his life secure from pain."

Commented on Lauren's

"Hath Not a Jew Passions..."

            Throughout the last year or so, I've spent time with Dante's Divine Comedy. In it Dante's protaganist ventures down into the depths of Hell. He encounters many of the damned and through that medium, Dante examines the nature of sin and of mankind itself. I agree with a lot of what Dante says, however, one thing that I disagree is his organization of the nine "circles" of Hell. The second circle is home to those overpowered by lust, the third houses those overcome by gluttony, and the fourth contains those consumed with greed. Normally, people would not question this. However, I think that the all three of these circles can be categorized in one word: Appetite. Gluttony is appetite for physical food, Greed is appetite for money, power, or other physical objects, and lust is appetite for.. well, you know.One thing predominant in Book IX of The Republic is appetite. It says near 571b, "I think all of us harbor within ourselves unnecessary pleasures and appetites. Some are also lawless." Socrates and Glaucon go on to explain the characteristics of private and public tyranny. They say that it starts with subconscious appetite. The desire only appears in a dream, but the dream state soon provides fruit for the awakened state. The desire grows like a tick. Increasingly occupying one's thought until every decision is driven by desire. I agree with this to an extent. I believe that in the back of every man's mind is a sense of self-preservation and betterment. Mankind ultimately wants to better itself. Book II also supports this with Glaucon's analogy of the Ring of Gyges. Glaucon states that the reason people act justly here on Earth is only for self-preservation. We give up temporary pleasure on Earth to be rewarded by God via eternal pleasure. The negation also is true. We submit ourselves to temporary abstinence of worldly pleasure, so we do not have to abstain from eternal pleasure and face eternal punishment in Hell.

P.s. commented on Emerson's "Knowledge or Ignorance."

Shakespeare's Divided Line

“Fair Portia's counterfeit! What demi-god / Hath come so near creation? Move these eyes? / Or whether, riding on the balls of mine, / Seem they in motion? Here are sever'd lips, / Parted with sugar breath: so sweet a bar / Should sunder such sweet friends. Here in her hairs / The painter plays the spider and hath woven / A golden mesh to entrap the hearts of men, / Faster than gnats in cobwebs; but her eyes,— / How could he see to do them? having made one, / Methinks it should have power to steal both his / And leave itself unfurnish'd. Yet look, how far / The substance of my praise doth wrong this shadow / In underprizing it, so far this shadow / Doth limp behind the substance” (The Merchant of Venice III.2.1485-1498).

It’s funny, the things that go through your head when you’re standing on stage listening to the same lines over and over again. A lot of times they become routine, meaningless words. But other times, it takes a while to really comprehend and understand what’s being said. This quote is one of the latter. I understood what Bassanio was saying about the portrait of Portia, but it never sunk in what he was really saying. It wasn’t until after we had discussed the Divided Line on Tuesday that this monologue began to stick out. Sometimes I wonder if Shakespeare had read Plato, because this is eerily like Plato’s discussion on the Good. Bassanio describes for the audience a painting of Portia. But then he remarks that his description cannot do the picture justice, just as the picture does not truly represent the full Portia. On Tuesday night, Plato’s forms suddenly made sense to me. As a result of this, for those of you who saw the play, every time this scene came around, I was thinking of Plato and the Divided Line, which may have accounted for some of my excited facial expressions as I drew multiple awesome connections!

Tantum e tenebris receptum constabit,

~Meghan

P.S. (I commented on Katelyn’s post “Socrates on Homer”)

P.P.S. (On a completely unrelated note, Merchant is now officially over and I don’t know what to do with myself!!)

Creating utopia is an impossible endeavor, not only because people are flawed, but also because people are different. Societies cannot continue to exist when they are built upon such specifics models, ones that don’t take into account the ever-changing needs and values of a population. Socrates is advocating a system that is his ideal of perfection, but it is not everyone’s ideal society. Socrates advocates the implementation of a specifically reared ruling class, raised to uphold the ideals of his utopia, but this would only cause those guardians to become increasingly more out of touch with the population due to their shielded existence. Who would be updating the established guardian curriculum? The act of attempting to create a perfect and just society for an entire population is partially responsible for why society is not perfect or just. One man’s heaven is another man’s hell, and by suggesting that one’s heaven should be implemented amongst a people group, one becomes the reason others devise their own utopias.