Monday, October 7, 2013

Oedipus #2

To answer this prompt, you will need to create a Blogger account. The prompts to do so will pop us as you attempt to answer from this site. Please use a name by which I can identify you easily, preferably your first name and last initial. This is a public blog, not a district-restricted blog. NO LAST NAMES!

Due date: Saturday, October 12, by Midnight . . . to avoid confusion, that's the midnight between Saturday night (when I'll be sound asleep) and Sunday morning (when I'll be awake and fully caffeinated and ready to read your highly entertaining and informative blogs).

This week, you have two questions from which to choose. Some of you didn't participate in the first blog. Answering both of these questions might mitigate the issues in Blog #1.

Question 1: The first sentence of Aristotle's Metaphysics is "All men by nature desire to know." Explain what Oedipus the King says about the THEME of knowledge - the universal human desire to know. Is Oedipus's tragedy that he is simply too true to human nature? Is the desire for knowledge the finest of human attributes, or is it the road to ruin? According to the play, what are the glories and the limits, the rewards and the punishments, of knowledge?

OR

Question 2: Using only the text of Oedipus the King, demonstrate how it either conservatively controls a potentially subversive response by the audience (such as anger at the gods for their cruelty and perhaps anger about authority in general) or subtly invites such a subversive response. ?


Answer: A great answer will consist of the following: Several well-written paragraphs with at least ONE text reference. At least one response to another student that covers more than "duh" or "ditto." For this blog post, I'll be looking for responses that closely target the the prompt and are more than one paragraph in length.

When quoting lines of poetry, include the line number(s) ONLY in parentheses after the quote and before the period at the end of your sentence. If you quote more than one line of poetry, use the / sign to indicate the end of one line and the beginning of the next.

115 comments:

  1. Question 1:
    Oedipus the king, and the tragedy in it, revolves around the theme of knowledge. Knowledge, in the end, causes more tragedy than good. Teiresais knows that knowledge would be the ending to Oedipus and Jocasta when he refuses to outright tell Oedipus of the prophecy, “I will not bring this pain upon us both neither on you nor on myself.” P 1568 358-359 I do believe that part of Oedipus’s tragedy was that he is too true to human nature, it was Oedipus that taunted Teiresais into telling him the prophecy, it was Oedipus who sent for Laius’ slave of the past, and it was Oedipus who sent for the slave whom escaped from the “robbery” that Oedipus caused. Oedipus was his own enemy, but it contrasts with Jocasta’s view to leave the desire to know alone. Jocasta wanted Oedipus just to leave the idea of this behind – to not believe Teiresais. So, one could infer that human nature isn’t shown in Jocasta because she doesn’t investigate to gain knowledge.
    Considering that the knowledge gained by Oedipus eventually led to the destruction of his mother, of him, and of the future of his children I believe that knowledge is the road to ruin in this play. Without the knowledge Oedipus gained the lives of many wouldn’t have been drastically altered that day. In Oedipus the only glory and reward seen in the discovery of knowledge was that Jocasta knew what happened to her long lost son. This piece of information did not affect Oedipus as he didn’t know he was an adopted king, but this knowledge did lead to the ultimate death of Jocasta therefore the bad outweighed the benefits of knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that Oedipus was true to human nature, but knowledge is still a fi ne quality. Yes, the knowledge Oedipus sought obliterated Jocasta and Oedipus, Oedipus survived to become stronger and better. Through his arrogance, he blindly accused others of wrong when it was he who was wrong. The truth freed him of that trait.
      Most importantly of all, is the city of Thebes was saved. If the truth had been ignored, Thebes would be doomed from the curses. "The god's command is plain: Punish his takers-off, whoe'er they be." Oedipus was punished and now the city is saved. So knowledge may destroy, but in the case of Oedipus, knowledge is a virtue.

      Delete
    2. I agree that knowledge is the road to ruin for Oedipus. Knowledge can be a negative attribution. I also agree that Oedipus's need to be true to human nature is the reason for the destruction of him and his mother. I think you are correct in saying that the evil that came from this situation outweighed the good buried deep into the situation, however twisted that good may be.

      Delete
    3. I really like what Kevin said. From the initially reading it probably does draw a conclusion where you might think that knowledge was detrimental in the play. But like Kevin said, there are a lot of positive things that result from obtaining knowledge. Most evidently, like Kevin said, is that Thebes was saved. Aside from the priest on page one, we never hear the voice of the people of Thebes, and because of that the play naturally depicts Oedipus' own tragedy, however, it was a pretty good event for the people, who just had their city saved for a 2nd time. I also agree with Kevin in that the argument can be made that Oedipus is now a better person after obtaining knowledge. His arrogance caused a lot of problems and in the end the whole event really humbled him. He wonders off, but it's still an example of how knowledge provides truth, for better or for worse. Because of these different perspectives I think the play is an accurate representation of knowledge; it can be both punishing and rewarding. I think this is a true application for knowledge in modern day society.

      Delete
    4. I agree because the fact Jocasta wanted to avoid telling Oedipus the truth the second she did find out conveys how its is human nature to understand knowledge is a negative attribution. She knew that it would only do more harm that good to a person she loved. She knew that the best way to protect someone is with ignorance.

      Delete
  2. Question 2:
    Oedipus the King was written centuries before the present day when the Gods were the cause of everything, good or bad. This text arouses anger towards the lack of innocence seen in people. Yes, parts of this text are out dated, but other parts still arouse emotion most likely seen in the audience centuries ago. Subtly, when Teiresias has come unglued with Oedipus we see a slight hint toward the idea that these issues are still present today, “blindness for sight and beggary for riches his exchange” p 1571 505-506. This quote most definitely relates to present day audiences. For it is in the present day in which people are most concerned about riches and knowledge. This quote takes the audience aback and forces them to think of times where they have thirsted for knowledge and riches.
    Another quote which rightly shows the subtle act of a subversive response from the reader is “..reaps gains without justice and will not hold from impiety and his fingers itch for untouchable things” p1581 941-945. This statement also forces the reader to take a step back and think of times when the search for knowledge misguided them from the true purpose. Subtly, through this quote, the reader must force themselves to relate to Oedipus and the idea that knowledge sometimes isn’t the most important. With innocence is strength, and that’s what the text arouses in a reader after watching the tragedy of Oedipus.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't think the text is saying "innocence is strength," I think the message is closer to "innocence only goes so far." Oedipus was "innocent" because he didn't knowingly murder a king or marry his mother but his life still amounts to suffering. Innocence does get him somewhere though because the chorus and the audience sympathize with him making his exile more bearable.

      Delete
    2. I have to agree with Brickley in innocence being strength. Oedipus's tragic flaw could have easily been seen as his pursuit of knowledge. Although the term may not always be seen in life today, the text definitely gives innocence credit. If Oedipus had never heard from Creon and ended his pursuit of a godly knowledge of why the land was in bad shape everything would have been fine. Life would have gone allowing his mother to stay alive and Oedipus from realizing his sin and gouging his eyes

      Delete
  3. The desire for knowledge causes problems, but it is only a factor in Oedipus’ suffering. Oedipus started out with life being fine because he was in the dark. When he begins to become enlightened, “Once on a time Loxias said/ that I should lie with my own mother and/ take on my hands the blood of my own father,” (1121-3) his life goes South. If he had never known the prophecy he wouldn’t have run away from his parents and his life would have been peaceful for a bit longer.
    Oedipus pursuing self-knowledge was just as detrimental as him knowing about the prophecy in the first place. If Oedipus didn’t know of the prophecy it would have been harder to connect the dots that he was Jocasta and Laius’ child. Furthermore, if Jocasta, Laius, and Oedipus had never heard the prophecy, all three of their lives would have been dramatically altered because Oedipus would have knowingly killed his father and married his mother, making him a very different person.
    Oedipus was punished by his pursuit of knowledge, “I who first saw the light bred of a match/ accursed and accursed in my living/ with them I lived with, cursed in my killing” (1366-8) and cannot unknow what he has discovered. Oedipus regrets his curiosity but does not blame it on human nature but rather on the Gods. Indeed if it was prophesied that he would kill his father and marry his mother it was going to happen no matter how much self-control he was able to muster, making knowledge only a factor of Oedipus’ suffering.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ah so our little lecture did help.
      My Analysis
      Ivy do you think that the knowledge was what tarnished Oedipus or was it his actions of killing his father and falling in love with his mother? And I like the idea that Oedipus was not angry at his discovery; I think that that would make sense because he could not rightfully blame himself when he was only fulfilling a prophecy.

      Delete
    2. To a point, I think Oedipus was lead to turmoil through knowledge. But, I also want to highlight the attributes he acquired through the fulfillment of his prophecy. Initially Oedipus was arrogant and he had a miniscule amount of selfishness that increased drastically throughout the play. When he puts all the pieces together, he banishes himself, elucidating his passion for the citizens he had all along; he didn't want to be a burden on anybody anymore. Some could say he was running from his problems but Oedipus acquired a substantial amount of good qualities -such as unselfishness and humility- through ultimate knowledge of the prophecy.

      Delete
    3. I agree that Oedipus' knowledge causes severe and detrimental problems, but I do not think he is the only one. Jocasta's knowledge too led her to commit selfless crimes. Jessica, I agree that Oedipus' arrogance enhanced the news in which he received. If he did not hold such a hot head, he could have dealt with his problems on a smaller scale.

      Delete
    4. Though I think Ivy makes a very compelling case, I believe that Oedipus would have found freedom from knowing the whole truth from the beginning. It may have been better to keep the truth from him, after he had already fulfilled the prophecy because the knowledge destroyed him, but if he had known about the prophecy and that he was adopted right from the start, I believe that he would have been able to prevent most chaos from breaking loose.

      Delete
    5. @Nick M. :-)

      @ Gretchen F. - Real tragedy contains an element of redemption. Would the drama then have been merely evocative of pity and not tragedy?

      Delete
  4. Oedipus #2
    Question 1
    The story of Oedipus is the story of the search for knowledge. In Oedipus the King (<-- underlined) Teiresias tells Oedipus that he knows who the killer of Laius is, he says that he knows who is pulling Thebes into turmoil. However initially he withholds the majority of the information; this small action gives him power over Oedipus and the people who surround him. Oedipus speaks "For God's sake if you know of anything, do not turn from us; all of us kneel to you, all of us here, your suppliants," this is very interesting considering that the King of Thebes, their savior from the Sphinx is kneeling to a blind prophet. This is because Teiresias has the knowledge, he has the power.
    The search of power has always been very important, during the time period holding the power put that person in the best situation in the whole city. Oedipus wanted the power, the knowledge that Teiresias had; he resented him for having the knowledge when he himself did not. This is the reason that men by nature wish to gain knowledge, because it is also power; and that is why Oedipus searched and searched for the knowledge even when it lead to his downfall. It was not the knowledge that led to his downfall, it was his actions; the moment that he killed his father and fell in love with his mother he had tarnished himself. Even without the knowledge he had still committed crimes of unspeakable horror and after he gained the knowledge his crimes were neither mitigated or hardened. Therefore he sought to find the knowledge to gain power and when he obtained the knowledge he only realized the atrocities that he had committed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That quote was from (350-352)

      Delete
    2. I agree that it was not his knowledge that caused everything to go down hill. With or with out the knowledge he still fulfilled his prophecy and that was one thing that couldn't have been changed. I would be interested to hear if you think the desire for knowledge is initially bad or good. That was a tough question for me to answer because I also believe that knowledge had nothing to do with his fate.

      Delete
    3. I agree with Nick except I do not think you can support the fact that Oedipus resented the fact that Teiresias had knowledge that he did not, but more the fact that Oedipus was in the wrong. I think he resented the fact that the knowledge would bring about his downfall.
      Oedipus was ignoring the facts that were being presented to him, and there is no way that he was angry about what he didn't know, but moreover what he did know. I think that Teiresias made Oedipus realize a lot because of the way that he presented the knowledge.

      Delete
  5. Question 1:
    Initially, Oedipus the King believes he knows all. This is altered through his tragic flaws, revealing that he, in fact, might not know everything. The tragedy related to Oedipus is not only his absolute humanlike qualities, but his “godly” qualities, as he thinks the gods are inferior to him. The human desire to know is the strongest attribute one can have but sometimes this desire itself can be a hindrance.
    Oedipus is a fine example of this as his curiosity eventually leads to his downfall due to Teiresias’s initial suggestion of the prophecy. Oedipus’s first desire to seek knowledge is in the words of his speech to the citizens. He commands the people to “tell everything” of what “they know about the murder of Laius, son of Labdacus,” (237). This leads from the discussion between Teiresias and Oedipus, to the downfall of Oedipus in his quest for knowledge.
    Knowledge can be rewarding but ultimately punishing. We see Oedipus strive for knowledge in his actions and words, even when it seems he doesn’t want the knowledge. Ultimately when he reaches the end of the prophecy, his downfall leads to the glory of knowledge. He frees himself from his selfish attributes and his people from further disdain. His struggle ends as his fulfillment of knowledge is reached, although some characters such as Antigone and Jocasta were lead to a worse fate through knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do agree that the thirst for knowledge hurt Jocasta in worse ways than it hurt Oedipus, but I beg to differ that Oedipus thought he was better than the gods. I think Oedipus knew that the gods were the ultimate power. He knew this because the gods control fate and fate is lead by the prophecy. Yes, Oedipus did try to convince himself that Teiresias was just a fool, but he did trust the story enough to send for messengers to prove him wrong. Another downfall to Oedipus' story is the mere fact he left his adopted mother and father for fear of the prophecy. So I do think that Oedipus felt highly of himself, but I think in actuality he is afraid of the Gods.

      Delete
  6. Question 1:

    Knowledge is a delicate balance between need and want. There are things we need to know and there are things we want to know. In the beginning of the play Oedipus believes he knows all there is to know. However, as the play continues he soon finds out that there is much to be learned. Oedipus is seen as a godly figure however he feels the inclination to be human and learn more. Knowledge is very powerful and sometimes too much knowledge can lead to tragedy. Teiresias's proposal of the prophecy and Oedipus being too true to human nature is what ultimately leads to his downfall. "To Delphi, and Apollo sent me back / Baulked of the knowledge that I came to seek. / But other grievous things he prophesied,/ Woes, lamentations, mourning, portents dire;/ To wit I should defile my mother's bed /And raise up seed too loathsome to behold,/And slay the father from whose loins I sprang. (791-797)"
    Oedipus realizes that his pursuit of knowledge is what leads him to his fate and his downfall. Jocasta tries to stop him begging him not to dig more but his lust for knowing the truth takes over him.
    Knowledge is not an evil thing. The want to know more than you need to know can cloud your judgment. Whenever you know more than you should something always goes wrong.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe knowledge can be evil, depending on the situation. In this situation this knowledge is evil. This is the bad knowledge; once it is known there is no more want for it. This knowledge and pursuit of truth brought the downfall of Oedipus, you are correct in that. Therefore, I believe that makes this sort of knowledge evil.

      Delete
    2. I like how you defined the balance between need and want in relation to knowledge. I also agree with Cassidy that knowledge can be good or bad. The affect of the pursuit of knowledge depends on two things: the knowledge being sought and the reason/purpose for seeking it.

      Delete
    3. I disagree with Cassidy that knowledge can be good or bad. Knowledge in itself has no power so it can not be good or bad. The only think that people can do with knowledge is become learned and then the person can use that knowledge how they want.

      Delete
    4. I understand Jeff's point of view, but I more believe that knowledge is actually indifferent to a person's outcome. A person's human nature is always to acquire more knowledge, however when that learns what they do want to hear it can speed them up to their ruin. Knowledge is neither good nor bad, but having it can lead to a person's desire to change their fate.

      Delete
  7. Question 2:

    In the time period in which Oedipus was written many people believed that the God's determined all things good and evil. Whenever a disaster would occur the people would always assume it was because they were doing something wrong. The people often "looked" to the Gods for the solution to their wrong doings. The text of the play suggests that Oedipus was an innocent victim to the God's games of fate. Oedipus did not knowingly kill the King of Thebes or marry his mother. Oedipus's suffering causes the audience to sympathize with him because he is blind in understanding his actions. Although many people would like to blame Oedipus's downfall of the cruel hand of the God's, the reality is that Oedipus is the reason that he and Jocasta suffered in the end. "Let the storm burst, my fixed resolve still holds,/To learn my lineage, be it ne'er so low./It may be she with all a woman's pride /Thinks scorn of my base parentage. But I /Who rank myself as Fortune's favorite child, /The giver of good gifts, shall not be/ shamed./ She is my mother and the changing moons /My brethren, and with them I wax and wane. /Thus sprung why should I fear to trace my birth?
    Nothing can make me other than I am. (1077-1086)"
    This quote proves that Oedipus's fate of killing his father and sleeping with his mother is already sealed and has been fulfilled through his searching of knowledge. Therefore it is Oedipus's fault that tragedy strikes him not the fault of fate or the Gods.
    There are many subtle parts of the play that causes the reader to relate themselves to the events taking place. "O wealth and empiry and skill by skill /Outwitted in the battlefield of life, /What spite and envy follow in your train! /See, for this crown the State conferred on me. /A gift, a thing I sought not, for this crown /The trusty Creon, my familiar friend, /Hath lain in wait to oust me and suborned /This mountebank, this juggling charlatan, /This tricksy beggar-priest, for gain alone /Keen-eyed, but in his proper art stone-blind. /Say, sirrah, hast thou ever proved thyself /A prophet? When the riddling Sphinx was here /Why hadst thou no deliverance for this folk? /And yet the riddle was not to be solved /By guess-work but required the prophet's art; /Wherein thou wast found lacking; neither birds /Nor sign from heaven helped thee, but I came,/The simple Oedipus; I stopped her mouth/ By mother wit, untaught of auguries. /This is the man whom thou wouldst undermine, /In hope to reign with Creon in my stead. /Methinks that thou and thine abettor soon /Will rue your plot to drive the scapegoat out./
    Thank thy grey hairs that thou hast still to learn /What chastisement such arrogance deserves. (380-404)"
    In this quote Oedipus is accusing Teiresias of having wrong knowledge of the prophecy and shows how proud he is for having the right ideas of the prophecy. This is ironic because this is the cause of his downfall. The reader can relate to this because there are many times where we do not want to believe what someone has to say but think we are 100% right.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with you Sydney. The people would go to the Gods for everything, whether it was good or bad. The people would think every time something sort of bad happened that they did something wrong so they would try to please the Gods in fixing the problem.

      Delete
  8. I think that you're very accurate on your analysis of the gods in Oedipus the King. But something to take into consideration is that in this time science and the logical thinking of today wasn't heard of. These people need to blame the gods for the occurrences they couldn't explain themselves. That being said, do you think that the people of this time (and Oedipus) believed just in the power of the gods or also in other powers such as karma? Is it possible Oedipus just blamed this on the gods knowing his actions were the real problem?

    ReplyDelete
  9. In Oedipus the King, Oedipus is a seeker of knowledge and truth. He struggles to uncover Laius’s murder and his own identity, despite numerous warnings that he should leave the truth alone. His pursuit of knowledge and truth, results in ruin as Oedipus uncovers his destiny, which he was better off not knowing. This suggests that knowledge is futile and limited in its ability to bring happiness to those who seek it.
    Oedipus is too true to the human nature of seeking knowledge. There was a big secret that few knew, but everyone wanted to know. Everyone falls victim to this aspect of human nature. Why wouldn't someone want to know all the juicy gossip? Because it typically leads to ruins. "I beg you- do not hunt this out- i get you, if you have any care for your own life." (Jocasta, lines 1122-1123) Jocasta begs Oedipus to not seek out the knowledge of truth, because she knows it will own bring misfortune. When Oedipus states he will pursue it, meaning he will find the truth, Jocasta says "God keep you from the knowledge of you are." (line 1136) Oedipus is her son and the murderer of his own father, Jocasta knows this knowledge will come of no good.
    In the play knowledge is the road to ruin. Oedipus chasing the truth has rewards in regards to the truth being uncovered and his past being revealed; potentially giving him a better understanding of who he is. The punishments that come with this chase result in knowledge of the sins and wrong-doings. Oedipus went form living a blessed life as a king to a blind, exiled sinner just because of the truth. Knowledge of the truth appears to be a glory in the play, because everyone wants the heardsman to spill the beans. However, that truth my be the kind no one wants to hear. Oedipus learning of his destiny destroys everything he once knew, making the pursuit of knowledge a road to ruins.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I may have to fight the fact that there was a truth "no one wanted to hear." Certainly someone wanted Oedipus to pay for killing a man in cold blood. It may have been a rough truth, but would anything really have been any better if Oedipus had killed his father, slept with his mother, and lived a happy, carefree life? That seems a little messed up to me. Also, Although Oedipus certainly went from living a blessed life as a king to an exiled sinner, I don't believe that it was because of his search for truth, but rather simply because he did in fact do all of the things he found out about. This . . . Is a little hard to articulate, but basically, he wasn't exiled because he knew what he had done. He was exiled because he freaking killed his father and married his mother! . . . Does that make any sense?

      Delete
    2. Cassidy I fully agree with what you stated in you post, on how in this play the gift of knowledge is a road to ruins. You also made a great connection with you quote from Jocasta that I had not seen before, but once you explained it it makes perfect sense in fitting with the gain of knowledge. She begs him to no seek out such knowledge because she herself has already gained such knowledge and knows it's strength in misery that it brings; because she herself is already feeling such effects from it.

      But you should not forget the great outcomes that do come from the desire of knowledge that don't particularly relate to this plot. That great improvement does come from gaining knowledge.

      Delete
  10. The quote from Aristotle's Metaphysics, "All men by nature desire to know," Is certainly a very applicable tie-in to a major theme of Oedipus the King. This theme, of course, is knowledge and the everlasting desire to search for it. I do not however, believe that this search is by any means harmful. By searching for knowledge, Oedipus did not unwittingly create some alternate universe in which he committed his infamous sinful acts, rather, he simply found out the truth of his actions which had already come to pass. This alone is not malicious, and so knowledge is not the plague itself, but simply a potential carrier. If the truth happens to hurt, that is no fault of the search for knowledge. It is the fault of whatever caused such truths. Therefore, man's desire for knowledge is a very fine attribute with "the path to ruin" having little to do with the search itself and everything to do with man's actions prior to gaining knowledge.
    One could argue that without knowing the truth, the truth (from a philosophical standpoint) doesn't really exist. However, from an omniscient standpoint, as in a reader who has total knowledge of all scenarios, for a character to not seek out knowledge of themselves and remain in blissful ignorance, would be an act viewed as cowardliness, or just plain stupidity.
    According to the play however, knowledge can actually be very dangerous and potentially life-threatening. If the price to pay for knowledge is a set of eyes, or an entire human life, then one may argue that knowledge can be harmful. Once again however, as a reader who knows of the twisted events that have actually transpired, It would be far worse for the characters to continue on without knowing their wrongdoings. When Teiresais refuses to tell of the prophecy and says, “I will not bring this pain upon us both neither on you nor on myself.” (358/359) He was just being a sneaky cryptic prophet. He knew darn well that it wouldn't be the knowledge that caused problems, but the facts it presented. Oedipus had done shameful things whether he knew of the prophecy or not. The play ended in tragedy simply because Oedipus murdered his own father and slept with his mother, not because of some fatal flaw forcing him to find out the truth. Had he not ever known and continued on, the play would have still been a tragedy (although unknown to the characters . . . is there such a thing as a dramatic irony tragedy?), and it certainly would have been way more messed up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with your argument. The idea that having or lacking knowledge does not impact the event that occurred is also very good. I did no think of that originally. The idea that the characters having knowledge affects how the readers view them also contributes to the argument. Hiding from truth and knowledge can be viewed as cowardice, but I don't believe Teiresias is a coward. Perhaps he understands that presenting Oedipus with the knowledge of his sins would be too devastating for Oedipus to handle, and so by sparing him he was trying to spare the city of Thebes of a great realization and pain.

      Delete
    2. This is a very interesting take on the thought of knowledge. While you dismiss the opinion that knowledge is dangerous or malicious, you also are able to notice that the play views it differently. I agree completely with your interpretation of the prompt. However, are there any situations in the real world where the search for knowledge can be malicious? For example Julian Assange (founder of wiki-leaks) looked for knowledge with the prime intention of breaking down barriers and causing turmoil. Just a thought.

      Delete
    3. I agree with everything you said Liam. Knowledge didn't cause trouble, Oedipus causing trouble caused trouble. And I like that you point out the fact that ignorance of the dirty deeds would be worst than knowing, becasue while completey true, it also shows that knowledge isn't bad, or neutral, but actually a good thing, which is opposite what the play is trying to say, but what I consider to be the truth.

      Delete
    4. This response to the prompt is certainly a new perspective, and I agree with most of the argument, but when it says, “... for a character to not seek out knowledge of themselves and remain in blissful ignorance, would be an act viewed as cowardliness, or just plain stupidity.” I have trouble with the assumption here. In order for a character to seek out knowledge of themselves they first have to realize they are missing information. Oedipus is content in thinking he knows who he is until Teiresias tells Oedipus he doesn’t actually know anything. It wasn’t a choice for Oedipus to seek out, or not seek out, his true self, until he knew that his previous information was false. The audience knew of the real story of course but they could not view Oedipus as stupid or cowardly simply because he was ignorant of his false identity.

      Delete
    5. @ Hannah D.: You stated "In order for a character to seek out knowledge of themselves they first have to realize they are missing information." I think you make a very interesting point!

      Delete
  11. Question 1:

    In Oedipus the King, the theme of knowledge is perhaps the driving force behind the plot, development, and characters of the story. This play supports Aristotle's proposition that "all men by nature desire to know." Oedipus, when presented with the mystery of Laius' death, desires the knowledge of the murder of the king and the bringer of plaque on Thebes. The citizens of Thebes desire the knowledge of what plagues their city. Creon desires the knowledge of what can be done to stop the plague, and confronts the gods for this truth. Perhaps the only character that wished he lacked knowledge is Teiresias, but that is because he is already given immense knowledge from the gods. Prophecy represents the vessel of knowledge; it reveals the future to characters and gives them knowledge of their destiny.

    Oedipus is all too true to human nature in the tragedy. He desire to learn and acquire knowledge is insatiable once the prophet incites his thirst. Jocasta pleads with Oedipus to stop his hunt and leave sleeping dogs lie, but Oedipus has other ideas. Jocasta exclaims "God keep you from the knowledge of who you are," but her prayers go unanswered as Oedipus slowly unravels the truth from messengers and shepherds. Nothing can stop Oedipus' quest. He is a juggernaut that is incapable of being contained. And when he discovers the knowledge he sought, he learned that one shouldn't ask questions they don't want the answers to.

    The desire for knowledge is the finest of human attributes. The thirst for knowledge has led to countless discoveries in a myriad of fields: physics, biology, chemistry, math, language arts, history, medicine, design, architecture. The list is infinite. Without a desire for knowledge, there would be no advancement in technology. No television, cars, internet, or iPhones would of been invented without an innate human desire for knowledge. Some would argue it is a road to ruin, and use Oedipus' downfall as their support. But did Oedipus really fall? Would it be better for Oedipus to live as a king and have no knowledge of his sins, or for him to live as a hermit but remorse and plead forgiveness for his sins. It is better that Oedipus has the knowledge of what he has done to his family so he can think about the crimes he has committed. Ignorance is the greatest failure of humanity, and so by ridding himself of that ignorance, Oedipus has indeed risen to a higher place than he was before the truth was revealed.

    However, despite the rewards of knowledge, there can also be limits. Knowledge can be truth, and truth can often times be painful. It was painful for Oedipus to learn that he killed his father and had children with his mother. It can also require quite a lot of energy to acquire knowledge. Oedipus had to utilize all of resources to determine the bringer of plague on Thebes. Knowledge can also benefit some while hurting others. The citizens of Thebes benefit from Oedipus realizing he is the bringer of plague, but Oedipus must put out his own eyes with agonizing cruelty.

    Despite these limitations, the benefits of knowledge far outweigh the risks, and that is why the desire for knowledge is the greatest attribute of humans and their nature.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ethan, your argument is sound and I agree that the benefits far outweigh the risks. Sometimes. Throwing off the coat of ignorance is a great way to provide a benefit to knowledge. However, bringing in present-day items of knowledge is a creative idea but it may go too far. Oedipus' desire for knowledge is not a desire to find out how to improve human life and how stuff works but rather his self knowledge and discovery. Yet, that is addressed just fine in the rest of your essay but the present-day examples almost contradict your argument that Oedipus' benefit that he opens his eyes because they extrapolate on a part of Oedipus' journey that wasn't there.

      Delete
  12. Question #1
    The theme of knowledge has been questioned throughout human existence. It appears in many forms, ranging from the articulate and dated Oedipus the King, to the simple and modern saying “Curiosity killed the cat.” The question however, is whether gain of knowledge leads to a positive or negative outcome. In most cases, including the two above, the gain of knowledge leads to an unfortunate ending- a dead cat and a self-mutilated Oedipus. Perhaps this misfortune is a result of the reason for gain. To seek knowledge for selfish reasons or personal gain, I believe, is the cause of this tragedy. Oedipus sought knowledge to avoid his terrible fate - to save himself from a life unwanted. As seen in Oedipus the King, this quote warns of wisdom, when Teiresias speaks to Oedipus; “Teiresias: Alas, how terrible is wisdom when it brings no profit to the man that’s wise! This I knew well, but had forgotten it, else I would not have come here.” (lines 337-340)

    If the reason for a gain of knowledge is unselfish, however, then the outcome can be positive. For instance, educational knowledge leads to technological advances for mankind as a whole. Humanity has come so far due to the gain of knowledge in the fields of medicine, transportation, communication, etc; because it is useful and helpful to others.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Question 1

    In Oedipus the king, knowledge is arguably the largest factor behind the downfall and tragic nature of Oedipus’s story. The theme of knowledge is introduced almost immediately with the plague of Thebes (Lns 24-31) by the priest. Oedipus “sees” the plague, a foreshadowing of his own doom, and wishes to do anything to help the plague be gone. Further along in the play, Tiresias tells Oedipus of his own downfall, and Oedipus chooses to ignore Tiresias. Even though he is provided with the knowledge and forewarning of his doom, Oedipus chooses to dismiss it. It is only when Oedipus begins to doubt himself, and search for the answers to his past, does he realize what he has done.

    Knowledge or the desire for it can be viewed as both a curse and a blessing. Yet in many cases, I believe that the desire or extreme desire for knowledge can lead to ruin. In Oedipus, if he had not begun to doubt his own existence, or what his past may have held, Oedipus could have lived his entire life, albeit in a “sleeping with mom” filled, nasty way, but he could have lived in less tragedy to himself. His quest for knowledge ultimately led to his tragic ending, his blindness, and the death of his mother.

    According to the play, knowledge does have heavy limits and if the limits are ignored, then the consequences will be fierce. The knowledge of his prophecy and of the plagues cause are the two most important pieces of knowledge in Oedipus. However, the knowledge provided to Oedipus should have been sufficient enough for him to realize the plight. However when he begins searching for deeper knowledge into the subject, his tragedy befalls him. The play makes knowledge into a curse, when searched for in excess, and a blessing, when accepted for what it is.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Question #1

    The desire for knowledge is very present within the play of Oedipus the King. The quest to find knowledge of the prophecy is the whole plot of the story; it is Oedipus gaining knowledge of the curse he was born into and how it effected him and the people around him. In the beginning of the play when Teiresias presents what he sees as the prophet, he withholds all of the information from Oedipus and only tells the king enough to spark his interest. By doing this it leads Oedipus to desire the rest of Teiresias knowledge that pertains to himself. Thus making Oedipus knowledge hungry about his true self; this leads Oedipus down a road to the truth and to his own demise. In Oedipus's case his lure to knowledge doesn't not present itself as one of humans great attributes.

    In many cases through out history, the thirst for knowledge can result in being one the finest human attributes. The desire for knowledge leads to discoveries, it leads to inventions and new methods that shape history and the human society. with out having the urge to find knowledge, no one would excel towards improvement and greater ideas. This attribute can be the building blocks to great things, but yet it can be the destroyer of such things too. Such as when Oedipus gains the knowledge of the prophecy and exactly what he has done to himself and the people around him. The knowledge of this destroys Oedipus himself and brings about his own demise and end.

    According to the play when Oedipus finds knowledge he gains insight on who he truly is and his actual identity. This in itself is a benefit of knowledge in the play but it can not out weight the punishments that knowledge brings to Oedipus. When the king discovers who he is and the prophecy that comes with it, his world is brought to an end and he punishes himself for his new knowledge. (lines 1429-1435)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Rowan, editing needed and you argued both sides of the point.

      Delete
  15. Question 2

    When the play Oedipus the King was originally published, it was considered a civic duty to see these plays. This means that practically the entire purpose of these plays were to have a personal impact upon each and every person who saw Oedipus the King. The play, while focusing mostly on hubris and the tragedy of Oedipus itself, also adds an undertone of omniscient interference, or the gods. The gods foresee Oedipus’s fate, and through Tiresias, try to warn him. When Oedipus ignores, or dismisses the prophecy; in a slightly indirect way, he dismisses the gods.

    Watching this as an Audience member back in ancient Grecian times, the audience would leave the play feeling as though it had touched them personally, and as was the plays intended purpose, create more of a fear surrounding the gods and their wrath. They could most closely relate to the chorus, who cries out to the gods (Lns 150-162) asking for their forgiveness and represents the common people in the show. It is in this way that the show most influences strongly, or pushes the audience, into a subversive response about and pertaining to the gods.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Samuel, we interpreted the context the same in that people are personally affected and learn from the play to not defy authority. I believe though there are multiples ways of seeing the events in the play. One could learn to respect and obey the God’s/authority as you stated, or one could perceive the events in the play as blame to or flaws of the God’s/authority. That is the great thing about art right? It can be seen through multiple interpretations and perspectives.

      Delete
    2. @Sam . . . What is the subversion? You state, " . . . in this way that the show most influences strongly, or pushes the audience, into a subversive response about and pertaining to the gods." I'm not sure I agree with your assessment. You leave your analysis with the the audience watching Oedipus dismiss the gods and you extrapolate from that the audience reaction as subversive . . . how? Wouldn't the audience see his dismissal and cringe, making them more likely to leave with reverence for the gods and a desire to act in ways they think the gods would like? Just a little food for thought.

      Delete
  16. Question 1

    In Oedipus the king Oedipus is always looking to learn more and more. When Oedipus sees Tiresias, Oedipus wants to learn what will happen in the future rather then letting life go how it will. When Oedipus is king of Thebes Oedipus is constantly looking for knowledge as well. This leads him to finding out that he married is mother.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jeff, in the next blog, please try to stay away from plot summary and make sure your response contains analysis.

      Delete
  17. Throughout the play, Oedipus is insistent on knowing everything, as if by having knowledge of who murdered Laius, he could put sorrow to rest and gain the respect of the citizens. He goes as far as to put a curse on this murderer without any knowledge of who it may be. “If with my knowledge he lives at my hearth I pray that I myself may feel my curse” (lines 264-265). Oedipus’s tragedy is not that he is too true to human nature. His tragedy is not that he desired to know but, rather that he didn’t know. It was because he didn’t know that he put a curse on himself.
    The desire to know is the road to ruin because with the desire to know comes the determination to find out. When people found out that Laius had been murdered the first thing they wanted to do was find out who did it so they could banish him. If these people didn’t have the desire to know they could have saved Oedipus. This also comes into play when Oedipus finds out that Jocasta is his mother. If he didn’t have the desire to know, he wouldn’t have found out, and nobody would have performed any acts of self harm. With the desire to know comes disappointment. Either, the truth is not what one expects or, one never finds out and is filled with curiosity for the rest of their lives.
    In Oedipus the King, the rewards of knowledge were that nobody had to live their lives in curiosity anymore. Oedipus didn’t have to spend the rest of his life searching for answers. The punishments of knowledge were that both Oedipus and Jocasta were not able to handle the truths, which lead them to self harm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Completely agree with you there. Oedipus and everyone in the play was driven with the want to know, but no one knew the pain it could cause. When you go into desire leading only to disappointment I feel like that sums up a major point of the play that not everything you learn is gonna help you. Due to their knowledge their lives changed so much and it changed how they were viewed by people. The knowledge Jocasta and Oedipus led to their deaths, so Aristotle's theory is correct that they had the desire to know, but never states of the damages of what knowledge can do to people.

      Delete
  18. Question 1:

    Knowledge is seen in Oedipus the King with Oedipus acting like he knows all, but in reality he doesn't know much anything. When the time comes to know and learn something it is when the question of who killed the previous King comes into play. This takes his character from knowing all to not knowing what actually happened. This led Oedipus to dive in and find the truth, which turned out to be him. It was his human nature that led him to keep going to find out what had happened to that previous king. The want to know and please his people pushed him into finding out what happened.
    The desire for knowledge should be one of the finest human attributes, but in the case of Oedipus it became the end of him. The want to know led to the hard, painful truth that he killed a man, who was the King of Thebes, at a crossroads. The truth and the knowledge Oedipus was suppose to get was to glorify him even more. Make him more loved and powerful in Thebes, but in the end it was only punishment. From killing his own father to marrying his own mother and then having her killer herself, has been punishment for not having knowledge of the prophecy. Knowledge only came to Oedipus properly once he was blind because that is when he could think clearly and see things for how they really are by finding some perspective in life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lauren, to get full points, make sure you back up your thinking with a quote from the text.

      Delete
  19. Question #2:
    The majority of citizens in ancient Greece would attend plays as a stance of “civic duty” (stolen from Sam K), meaning that each person would leave with a lesson learned by what the playwright intended to teach society. The personal beliefs may differ depending on the perspective the audience has on the play.
    Oedipus the King could merely be an act to make the citizens aware of the presence and power of the Gods. As Oedipus had defied the Gods by disregarding his prophecy, he would then experience the true wrath of the ones believed to be the authority in 400 b.c. Greece. Watching his downfall and the struggle throughout the entire play, the audience can see, feel, and experience the treachery Oedipus faced, therefore, would make the decision to obey and respect authority. Not wanting unfortunate events to happen to them, people could take away from the play that you may not agree with authority, but respect and obedience is a necessity to run a functional society.
    Another viewpoint may be to the effect that it is due to authority that society is in turmoil. Oedipus fulfilling the prophecy may be seen as the fault of the God’s and their use of fate upon “mortals”. The fate put on Oedipus quite possibly could have been the sole and only reason for the downfall perceived by the audience. People who have read or experienced the play could believe it is the act of authority being the cause of defects. Flaws in authority are the causes of weakness if the head of a society is corrupted, then there will more times than not be a dysfunctional society.
    Themes of authority from Oedipus the King are perception based. The way one reads or interprets the context of the play will determine the final lesson and personal belief of how society is affected by authority.

    ReplyDelete
  20. In Oedipus the King, we see the desire for knowledge lead to the downfall of Oedipus. From the beginning, after Oedipus makes the speech to the public, we see his selfishness and desire for knowledge as he interrogates Creon beginning in line 100. The tragedy of this play develops through this beginning indicating that the true tragedy was Oedipus’s human nature and his desire for knowledge. Naturally desiring knowledge is human nature’s biggest downfall. Every one of the problems facing humanity is the need for knowledge. From pollution developed by our new technologies to hundreds of thousands spent on college, humanities race for knowledge is what is killing us.
    In the play, the glories of knowledge are truthfulness both to yourself and what you believe. Oedipus had every right to the knowledge of who killed Laius, who his parents were, and why there was a curse on the land. By attaining that knowledge, Oedipus finds out who he truly is and has some fulfillment. In limits of knowledge, Oedipus finds that the knowledge he had attained was too much and beyond his control. In his attempt to control it, Oedipus saw his end. In his seek of knowledge, Oedipus saw no long term reward. At first, knowledge helped Oedipus and rewarded him with fulfillment but eventually it ended badly and he was punished with his lack of sight.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I completely agree with you. I think that a humans quest for knowledge can be our most dangerous attribute. When you talk about pollution from our new technologies it reminds me of religion. We don't really know where we came from so we use religion to make sense of it because no matter what we are told we are never 100% sure that we do have someone watching over us. When we think about all the lives that have died in the name of God, whether Christian, Muslim or Jewish there are lots of deaths on both sides. In the pursuit to explain our existence we end up killing other people because they have a little different idea about what god might be like. Like I stated in my essay, "Wisdom is safety." Because we are not wise and we just want to prove our knowledge right, our most primal instinct kicks in and we kill. We start wars. And this will be the human races inevitable demise.

      Delete
    2. Zach, to get full points, back up your thinking with a quote from the text. You jumped on a pretty slippery slope with your assertion that pollution and college costs are sending us to our death . . .

      Delete
  21. Question 1
    When looking at Oedipus one can only determine that knowledge can be detrimental. Knowledge is potentially dangerous when used in the wrong fashion. Wisdom is safety and we must distinguish between knowledge and wisdom. The more knowledge you obtain without benefiting from the wisdom of obtainment, the more detrimental it becomes. Because Oedipus is blind to his actions he receives punishment from knowledge.
    In the beginning of the play we see that Oedipus is trying to find the killer. He says, “
    Where are they? Where in the wide world to find the far, faint traces of a bygone crime?” Creon says, “In this land, said the god; ‘who seeks shall find; Who sits with folded hands or sleeps is blind.’” Creon is saying that if Oedipus seeks knowledge of the crime, he will find it. It is human nature to make sense of the unknown. But sometimes the unknown can be harmful. Oedipus finds this to be the case.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I definitely agree with you, but do you think that knowledge can be a good thing sometimes? Tiresias was "all-knowing," but he was seen in a more respected light. He was a good character in the play, even though he possessed knowledge. I think that knowledge is good AND bad at times.

      Delete
  22. I believe that Oedi's biggest weakness is his curiosity. It is hard to predict the outcome if he never questioned his family dynamics in the first place. However, the fact that he did is not a crime, but simply human nature. It is both inevitable and necessary for human nature to desire knowledge. "In this land, said the God; "Who seeks shall find; who sits with folded hands or sleeps is blind" a quote from Creon represents the general attitude to pursue knowledge.
    In this play particularly, knowledge is the precursor to punishment or in many of the character's case, self harm. Jocasta's knowing led to Odeipus' eye gouging, and her own lust. Both scenarios could have been avoided, however the deprivation of the knowledge could have been damaging just as equally, but perhaps more outwardly. We all wish to know what has been said about us (hence gossip) and what can effect us in the long run.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sarah, remember to delve deeply into analysis and try to stay away from summary.

      Delete
  23. In Oedipus the King, the play subtly invites a subversive response by showing the weakness of government, not outright, but by planting a seed of an idea in the minds of the audience that their authoritarian figures can be murders, capable of publicly disdained sexual acts, and oblivious to their most horrible acts. Also, with the development of prophecies, the audience begins to doubt the true power of gods. If the gods designed destinies leading to murder and having sex with their mothers, then how could a public believe that they could trust them with their lives.
    The quote “With the god’s help/this will all come to light successfully,/or else it will prove our common ruin.”, in lines 175-178 describes how much the gods meant to the public. These hints that the play drops on their lack of making good decisions in the prophecies lead only to the public lacking trust for their gods. In both the lack of belief in the gods and authority figures, Oedipus the King hints often about their inability of power.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting assessment. To play devil's advocate, couldn't the audience come away with the message that they should lead their lives accepting the warnings of the gods and try not to meddle?

      Delete
  24. In examining Oedipus from a perspective that centralizes his quest for knowledge, I think he is a good representation of people in society. We are always on a quest for knowledge, and I think that really is a powerful aspect of human nature. Oedipus remains true to this nature, he continues to seek people, be it the herdsman or shepherd, who he knows will help him in obtaining self knowledge. This is the whole reason the play even continues. If Oedipus didn't care, if he just shrugged off the evidence and never looked to understand, then the play would be boring and have no plot. This is how human nature works, we have a drive to obtain knowledge and I think it is a good attribute that we have as humans. In the play when Oedipus finally obtains the full self knowledge, many negative things happen. Jocasta says, "O Oedipus, God help you! God keep you from the knowledge of who you are" (pg 1586) and in this way Oedipus acquiring self knowledge is presented very negatively. Jocasta proceeds to kill herself and Oedipus is forever changed. While this is a negative example of knowledge, it exemplifies how powerful knowledge really is. It has equally as strong rewards and punishments. Knowledge will never be limited because as humans we always seek more. This is the reason we are not still living as our ancestors did thousands of years ago. We evolved, we observed, every individual naturally sought out knowledge and through this our species and our lifestyle has evidently developed. We have far more knowledge in the medical field than we ever have in history, and we are saving lives. My comment is geared more towards the opinion that the desire for knowledge is human nature and it is a positive attribute. Oedipus is a tragedy, therefore knowledge is naturally going to be used as the central force for Oedipus downfall and Jocasta's death. However, would things really be better off WITHOUT knowledge and the truth being revealed? This is a dramatic example of how influential and power knowledge is; it was the force that changed Oedipus and the kingdom of Thebes.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Question #1
    Throughout Oedipus, knowledge is shown by everyone-or so Oedipus thinks. Oedipus thinks he knows it all, but he doesn't. In this play, it is not the knowledge that is harmful, it is what you do with it that can be harmful. It's hard to imagine that anyone with Oedipus' future wouldn't try to change that destiny, though.

    Throughout the play, Oedipus slowly gains knowledge of his destiny and his future-which he would've been better off not knowing. Jocasta doesn't want Oedipus to find out his destiny because she doesn't want him to get harmed. "I beg you- do not hunt this out- i get you, if you have any care for your own life" (Jocasta, lines 1122-1123). Because Jocasta knows Oedipus killed his own father, she tries to keep him from knowing this because it can only bring misfortune. Trying to keep people from knowledge isn't good, which is what Jocasta was doing.
    In my opinion, I believe knowledge is the road to ruin. However, it's not the desire for knowledge, but what you do with it. Jocasta tries to keep it from Oedipus which is eventually the road to ruin. If she kept it to herself, I believe the play would've ended completely different. I believe the downfall came into action because of Teiresias telling Oedipus the prophecy.
    All in all, knowledge isn't harmful-it is what you do with the knowledge. You want to know more but the more you know, the more likely you are to harm others.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Keely, I think that is just one of the smartest doggone things I've ever read.
      But no, I do have to agree with you on this subject. I can see your point about how you see knowledge is not harmful unless you abuse it. I think you have a deep meaning behind "knowledge is only harmful when it is abused". I think this shows up a lot throughout the play because the people who know about the prophecy don't seem to do any harm until they decide to tell people the prophecy.

      Delete
    2. I agree with your comment, and i especially like the point you made that "it is what you do with the knowledge." However, in Oedipus the King, knowledge is shown to be a death threat and burden to all who have achieved it. Oedipus begins to create his own life into a jumbled up puzzle, all to figure out something that Jocasta already knows which is that; she is his own mother. After Oedipus receives this knowledge, it soon leads to the downfall of the entire play. If Oedipus would have just accepted what he already knew and not pushed for even more information to solve his puzzled life, then his future would have been much different and his destiny could have given resolved his bewilderment.

      Delete
    3. @Tyler . . . Your response makes me think you believe that Jocasta had knowledge or Oedipus' true identity long before she did and that she tried to cover things up. She didn't know for very long before she scampered off and killed herself, so she wasn't part of a large coverup.

      Delete
  26. Question 1: The first sentence of Aristotle's Metaphysics is "All men by nature desire to know." Explain what Oedipus the King says about the THEME of knowledge - the universal human desire to know. Is Oedipus's tragedy that he is simply too true to human nature? Is the desire for knowledge the finest of human attributes, or is it the road to ruin? According to the play, what are the glories and the limits, the rewards and the punishments, of knowledge?

    Oedipus says that the knowledge theme is that it would have been much better if he didn't know his own destiny. Showing how seeking for knowledge does not bring a person happiness but when found can bring yah down. Oedipus being to close to human nature has not made him a tragedy but more so lead him to a tragedy!
    Treasuring for knowledge most deffinitly leads to ones distortion. As in the play Oedipus nowing his knowledge destroyed him and lead to by destiny. Roeden down knowledge lane leads to ruin like chicken with out diving out of a car.
    Lintels of the knowledge is own destortio through death and incest. Glories of the knowledge was that you get it! (As in the d-destruction/ruin)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Becca,
      I agree that "Treasuring" for ones knowledge leads to distortion. As Oedipus searches for the truth of Laius' death his character is "distorted" into someone completely different because he begins to understand that the prophecy may be coming true. I do not know what you mean by "Roeden down knowledge lane leads to ruin like chicken with out diving out of a car." I also do not understand the next two sentences after that one. However I do strongly agree that Oedipus' gain of the knowledge of the prophecy changed his character.

      Delete
    2. Becca, your response doesn't make a lot of sense as written.

      Delete
  27. While reviewing the text Oedipus the King I believe that Aristotle believed that if there was fate, why would you risk everything to alter the status quo? Fate determines the rest of your life, and if you knew how things were going to be, why would you try and fight and try to change your path that's already set out for you. Although the play gave the audience a bad view of the gods and seemed as if it would make the audience want to change the mind of the gods or what the gods proceeded to do that wasn't Aristotle's point. He is actually trying to get the point across of why would you try to change something that is out of your reach? When Jocasta gave up her son she thought she was changing her son Oedipus' prophecy and fate. It didn't change it though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, Jaclyn, that is such a good point! When I was discussing this with my mom, we thought very similar things. However, I thought that the audience wasn't really into thinking that the gods were doing things wrong and trying to make people's fates bad. I think it was more that the gods were given the fate to assign to someone. But I do see your point. Good job, J Dog.

      Delete
  28. Even though each and every one of us deserves to know the truth about themselves, Oedipus should have payed close attention to the advice of Oracle. Had Oedipus listened to the Oracle's warning, he would have not seeked the truth about his destiny (which he was much better without knowing) and the future tragedies would not have occurred. Throughout the play, Oedipus is shown as someone who leading himself to his own destruction. The Sphinx presents a puzzle to him, which in turn is compared to what his life has changed into. Oedipus actions are then made impulsively and makes rushed decisions without thinking about the consequences. An example of this is when he leaves the oracle before he can get specific details about his real parents.
    "To Delphi, and Apollo sent me back baulked of the knowledge that I came to seek. But other grievous things he prophesied" (791-793) After Oedipus pursues knowledge, what he figures out soon gives him an unfortunate realization of the future and what his own fate holds for him. This soon leads to his downfall, and gives the representation that knowledge is pointless and ineffective to give happiness to all that seek it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like how you were able to link the sphinx into what happened later. Although I disagree with the Oracle. I feel that Oedipus did what he could to try and prevent the fate that was given to him from happening. Had he tried to fulfill it and intentionally kill his parents he wouldn't be the good intention type person he is.

      He sought knowledge I feel to find a way to prevent the fate from happening once he started to get an idea that he was actually starting to fulfill the fate. Jocasta asked him to not pursue it any further, but his want to right the wrongs he did, only led to him doing even more wrongs.

      Delete
    2. I think Oedipus is better off with the knowledge. It's a mistake to say that Oedipus should have lived his life in denial or should have not sought the truth, and this would be a mistake if applied to modern day people. I think that the knowledge, for better or for worse, is always the superior force in the world. If we all lived in denial and never sought the truth the world would be fake and transparent. I think this play exemplifies how powerful knowledge is.

      Delete
    3. @ Nick . . . excellent response!

      Delete
  29. Question 1:

    The text Oedipus the King has a central theme of knowledge. Oedipus seeks to know more and more all through out the play. He first learns of his fate, and then acts accordingly based on his knowledge of said fate. “I will not bring this pain upon us both neither on you nor on myself.” P 1568 358-359j. This quote is Oedipus trying to deny the fate the he knows of and refuses to accept the fact that what he did in trying to deny his fate leads to his ultimate downfall.
    Later in the play, Oedipus continues to chase knowledge and learn more of what happened in his early years that would lead him to where he was. Jocasta is able to put together the events much quicker then Oedipus, and even asks him to quit the pursuit, only for his hunger to learn more get in the way. Because Oedipus continued to search and seek for more knowledge, Jocasta eventually kills herself to avoid the embarrassment of what she had done.
    The biggest reward to Oedipus' search for knowledge was that he learned of his fate, which to him meant he could prevent it from ever happening. But on the downside to this knowledge, he was too human in the sense that he wanted to know more and more, to the point that it caused the turmoil around him to happen.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Mrs T- my comment was in response to question 1

    ReplyDelete
  31. Question 2

    Sophocles wrote Oedipus with the intention of angering the people of Greece towards the gods. I feel this way because immediately in the play there is foreshadowing (that the people of Greece know is foreshadowing already). "yet there is not one of you, sick though you are,/ that is as sick as I myself." lines 69-70. Sophocles is foreshadowing the sickness of Oedipus and the curse he brought upon the land, by removing the Sphinx's curse.

    Through the use of foreshadowing several times in the first part of the play, the crowd is able to feel connected to Oedipus in that they already know what is going to happen to him, causing them to pity him. They know that he is the reason Thebes is under a plague and understand that it is his fault and the only way to fix it, is remove himself.

    At the start of the play crowd gets pity for Oedipus. This emotion then continues to change to Anger once the crowd is able to see that Oedipus does what he does, only because the "gods" told him of his fate. Had he never learned of his fate, he would never try to correct it, which would never have him solve the riddle, and become rules of Thebes setting in motion all of the events that happened. The reason the crowd feels angry at the gods and rather Oedipus himself is because they have the pity first off; secondly because they understand that the poor man only did what he did to try and prevent the worse from happening.

    Sophocles was able to use foreshadowing to greatly create emotions in the audience, and then was able to manipulate the rest of the play to manipulate the emotions of the audience towards the gods, who inadvertently caused all of the bad to happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Taylor, I think you give the (fairly lame) emotion of pity too much privilege here. Oedipus was a deeper character than one who only evokes pity . . . he is a tragic figure and I feel as if the audience wouldn't have had a superficial reaction to his plight. Just sayin' #whatdoyouthink?

      Delete
    2. Well exactly. He is tragic Character. The audience would pity him because of his tragic flaw. Because he is a tragic character, i think that makes the audience easier to be able to relate with him. Should Oedipus has been this super all human perfect man, the crowd would have loved to see some sort of tragedy fall upon him. Sophocles made him human, and being human is having a tragic flaw. Because he is human, the audience relates to him in some way, whether they want to or not, unless they had an audience of robots back in Ancient Greece.

      Delete
  32. Question 2:
    During the time period that Oedipus was written, people looked to the Gods as the higher powers who controlled their "fate" or in other words the Gods had the power to create good or bad in ones life. Oedipus was written to create an anger in people, perhaps towards the Gods for the occurrences of some of the events in Oedipus. "And you are held with God's assistance to have saved our lives." (In the online version it's on lines 44-45) This quote is giving an example of the power that their Gods held which in the end makes a point in showing anger in the people because of the things that these Gods let happen, such disasters in Oedipus may discourage the people.

    Near the beginning of the play people look up to Oedipus and respect him for his doings and in a sense feel for him because they may have some things in common with him. As the play goes on the seen greed for power that Oedipus carries in turn angers the people, Oedipus, being his own enemy, perhaps feels pity for himself.

    Through Oedipus and his actions towards the people creates anger. Therefore perhaps both the Gods and Oedipus really set off the anger of the audience. The Gods allow the negative things to occur and Oedipus' greed for power and in turn betraying not only the crowd but himself as well creates an anger in the audience.

    ReplyDelete
  33. The era of Sophocles invited the idea of polytheism and worshipping -as well as obeying- the gods. Sophocles intended that the gods would always and forever be superior to the humans and Oedipus reflected this idea. However, Oedipus also reveals the true identity of the gods; the gods could now create awful situations and outcomes. The play subtly invites a subversive response by creating the gods imperfect. This arouses questionable shifts from power to power. The humans are unable to lead each other -shown at the end of the play-, the gods cannot lead the humans -they create imperfect scenarios where humans can murder and commit incest. Although Oedipus says, "O god-all come true, all burst to light! O light-now let me look my last on you! I stand revealed at last-cursed in my birth, cursed in marriage, cursed in the lives I cut down with these hands!" the gods are the fault of his wrongdoings, showing the audience the gods are imperfect too. Thus, the audience is then lead to a subtle disbelief in their true powers, human or supernatural. The author's goal was to give the audience a choice of their superior- if they would have one.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Knowledge is definitely a fine human attribute, not the road to ruin, no matter what Oedipus the King will lead one to believe. It is what separates humanity from the animals, letting the world grow. Knowledge is the key to advancing the human race, and the only reason life goes on the way it does. There would be no distinction between 2013 and the days of cavemen if not for knowledge, and that's just common sense. Clearly, it is a blessed thing for humanity, and not a curse. This whole argument is whether the desire to know is the evil thing or not, but think about it, without a desire for it, knowledge wouldn't exist, and as necessary as it is, so is desire for it.

    Oedipus the King creates a very different story for the desire of knowledge, even though it is wrong. Many will argue that because Oedipus wouldn't give up his quest for knowing the answers, his fate was in some way worsened by it. The story tries to imply that because of his desire to know, Oedipus ends up getting Jocasta killed, his eyes gouged out, and his children's lives ruined, making it something terrible. It attempts to bring the old saying "What you don't know can't hurt you," to truth, to say that if he hadn't dug deeper and known all of that disturbing stuff, it wouldn't have hurt anyone. But, this thought completely disregards the fact that prophecy and fate are what they are, no matter what the route to get there. Whether or not Oedipus knew the prophecy, he still would have fulfilled it. In fact, he had already killed Laius and slept with his mother even before he sought to gain knowledge of it. The knowledge, and his efforts and desire to gain it, did not change the outcome, so it wasn't to blame.

    Even if it was, Oedipus himself is not to blame either. The question asks if Oedipus's tragedy is that he is too true to human nature (if his tragedy is that he seeks to know). The answer is no. Oedipus himself is not the one who wanted to know in the first place. It was the citzens of Thebes. They came to him with a problem (finding how to fix their city) and he had to seek answers - knowledge - to find what they inquired, as any other good King would do. In his own words, "I pity you, children. You have come full of longing," (66). He only sought knowledge because the townspeople wanted it, so if anything, they are the ones whose tragety is a crave for knowledge, not Oedipus.

    As the play spells it out, a glory and reward of knowledge is that in the case of the town, the knowledge of the killer of Lauis, and later expulstion of him, would solve the city's problems. Knowledge is the solution to a problem, and the betterment of the future. A limit of knowledge from the play would be that the amount of knowledge possible to gain at once is limited, and it takes a long process to gain the full knowledge of a situation. In this case, the knowledge supllied by the prophet was full, but it couldn't be understood until further investigation, leaving the limitation as how fast knowledge can be obtained. Finally, a punsihment of knowledge is that it will cause pain to some people. In Oedipus, obviously the punishment is the death of Jocasta, the eye gouging of Oedipus, and the children's state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent point made in your first paragraph. The difference between whether or not the desire for knowledge is a fine human attribute or the road to ruin is significant, but it must be put into context as you did here. In modern society I agree with your statement, the desire for knowledge has been a key factor in the advancement of the human race as a whole over time. However I disagree with the idea that Oedipus' search for knowledge didn't change the outcome of the play. If Jocasta and Oedipus had never realized that she was his mother and they had slept together, the prophecy would still have come true. The difference is that Oedipus and Jocasta discovered this truth, and as a result Jocasta committed suicide and Oedipus gouged out his eyes. Those two points were never a part of the prophecy, it was their search for knowledge that created those outcomes.

      Delete
    2. Excellent conversation, both of you. You make fine points!

      Delete
  35. Question #1
    This controversy over knowledge in Oedipus, whether it leads to glories or ruin, is constant throughout the entire play. In fact it is very similar to the discussion of freewill verses fate that we had in class. The quote in lines 457-460, “You have your eyes but see not where you are in sin, nor where you live, nor whom you live with. Do you know who your parents are? Unknowing you are an enemy to kith and kin,” emphasizes the concept of knowledge throughput the book.
    In the discussion we had in class it seemed like we couldn’t decide whether his fate of knowing he would sleep with his mother and kill his father decided to chooses his freewill that lead to his fate. However, on the other side of the conversation knowing his fate was indifferent to the fact that his fate would still occur. Therefore, this then leads to the theme of knowledge and whether leads Oedipus to ruin or glories. The answer I can conclude from the conversation in class is knowledge of everything, even if he knew who his parents were, would still leads to his fate in some way or another. Oedipus’ desire to run from his fate and gain more knowledge will not help him avoid his intended ruins or glories and therefore, it is not knowledge that determines a person’s fate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with the statement," it is not knowledge that determines a person's fate" It is more of what the person does with the knowledge that determines his fate. Though I do disagree that you argue that his knowledge is constant in the story and that it is everything.Having the blanks gives him the opportunity to create an identity for himself. He is always searching for knowledge. Knowledge is just apart if who you are. It helps with decisions and actions a person makes but it is not everything.

      Delete
  36. Question #2
    In Oedipus the King, it conservatively controls a potentially subversive response by the audience because it proves how a persona defying the gods, even if it’s for the better, will still lead to tragedy. When Oedipus denies the god’s fate for him and he leaves his unknown adoptive parents, not only does the fate still occur, but he then has to bring upon his own ruin. This shows that his pride and arrogance will lead him to his tragedy that only desires to avoid.
    In the quote in lines 85-86, “But when he comes, then, may I prove a villain, if I shall not do all the Gods command.” Oedipus not only foreshadows his tragedy, but he thinks he can decide the Gods’ will. This clearly shows all of the citizens that defying the Gods cannot possibly work out in their favor because even a selfless King who only wants to protect his people will still meet their unfortunate fate and possibly more. In general, what Oedipus did was not an awful act when he tried to avoid sleeping with his mother and killing his father. They play writer, Sophocles, wanted to illustrate that we cannot judge what we think is right and wrong, but simply to listen to the prophecies and our fate and simply accept them.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Question 1:
    In Oedipus the King, knowledge is a key theme to the plot. As Oedipus’ “desire to know” grows stronger, the prophecy begins to come true. Oedipus thinks he already knows everything, however when he hears of something that he doesn't know about he has to get to the bottom of it, for example when Lauis died the effect of human desire overtook Oedipus and he just had to know who killed Lauis. However, being aware of knowledge is not as powerful with what you can do with. Oedipus’ parents knew of the prophecy right when Oedipus was born so they abandoned Oedipus to save their own lives. This piece of knowledge was very powerful because if the parents had never known of the prophecy it may have come true many years early and it would be even more devastating because no one would know that it was Oedipus’ fate to commit those crimes.

    A desire for knowledge can lead to a road to ruin. If the desire of knowledge is affecting someone’s well-being, just as it did to Oedipus and even Jocasta, it can lead the person to destruction. For example, Oedipus says “O Go, I think I have called curses on myself in ignorance. (1578)”, this is prior to gaining the knowledge that Lauis is dead and Oedipus is afraid that he may be the murderer and his desire to find out leads him down a road of destruction. Also Jocasta’s knowledge that her new husband was actually her son caused her to go down a road of destruction which lead to her suicide. Before Jocasta dies she says to Oedipus, “God keep you from the knowledge of who you are! (1586)”, Jocasta does not want Oedipus to gain the knowledge of who he actually is because she is afraid that it ill lead him down a road of destruction just as it did to her. The rewards of knowledge are fixing a problem, or stopping one before it happens. This is shown through Jocasta and Lauis’ knowledge of the prophecy, their reward was that they prolonged the prophecy to come true. The punishments would occur if the knowledge lead to character down a road of destruction, just as Jocasta when she committed suicide due to her new knowledge.

    ReplyDelete
  38. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Question 1

    Throughout majority of Oedipus the King it is revolving around the theme of knowledge, from not knowing his own identity to gaining the truth to Laius’s death. In the end knowledge brought more hurt than good, it was the road to ruin. Oedipus started out so confident and someone who others could look up to, “I Oedipus whome all men call the Great” (Line 7). Though, as human nature and wonder came it caused Oedipus to question his knowledge about his past. Others knew that knowledge of Oedipus’s past would hurt Jocasta and Oedipus in the end and led to the prophecy that was kept secret from Oedipus. Though Oedipus’s desire and human nature drove him into learning what the prophecy was. “…although I hide them and breath no word of them” (Lines 370-371) Oedipus pushed people to find out the truth, which in the end lead to his ruins. No one wanted to say, “I will not bring this pain upon us both neither on you nor on myself” (Lines 358-359).Though he had the right and pushed to find the truth he should have listened to Teiresais and not determined the truth. The will for knowledge overwhelmed him and turned his life as a king into a puzzle. Though the human nature for Jocasta was not to investigate and learn knowledge of the past. Pushing for Oedipus to stop searching,” O Oedipus, God Help You! God Keep you from the knowledge of who you are!” (Lines 1137-1138). Not wanting to know the truth, once Jocasta gained the knowledge it caused her death. The knowledge of the truth brought Jocasta to kill herself and Oedipus to gouge his eyes out,” Creon is no hurt to you, but you are to yourself”( Lines417-418).
    Considering what happened to both Jocasta and Oedipus, the desire for knowledge is the road to ruin. Gaining the knowledge for Oedipus led to eye gouging, and Jocasta gaining the knowledge lead to death. Both are not the finest of human attributes for anyone, during the time period the play was written or during present time. If knowledge was not gained by either character pressure would not have been upon so many, he would be able to still see, his wife/ mother would not be dead, and he would not have altered so many lives, including himself, in a negative way. It brought tragedy where tragedy should not have stricken as well as heartbreak.
    Though there was tragedy to gaining knowledge there were rewards and glories, though there were also limits and punishments. The rewards were that Jocasta learned what happened to the son she left for dead, and he had a brother that “helped” him out, and that Oedipus in such way returned home and was a king. The glories were that he became king after his father’s death and he was admired by so many. As stated from the start, “I Oedipus whome all men call the Great” (Line 7). Though the limit was when Jocasta gained knowledge that she was married to her son, not knowing that when they first meet of course, and that there was more bad than good brought trouble which eventually led to her death. For Oedipus the limit was learning the truth and the troubling past that he had, the actions he had and who he really was lead him to gouge his eyes out. Not letting him see any more bad things happen. The punishment for everyone was the truth its self. It brought pain to so many and death to some.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Question 1: Aristotle once said, "All men by nature desire to know". This statement can be analyzed in the story Oedipus the King by Sophecles. It can be argued that Oedipus met his downfall through knowledge, but I believe that Oedipus met his downfall through hubris and ignorance.
    At the beginning of the novel, Oedipus assumes that he knows the truth- who his real parents are. By believing this, he decides that he can outsmart the Gods and not fulfill the prophecy, so he leaves his home and separates himself from whom he thinks are his parents. In lines 107 to 110, Creon states to Oedipus that "who seeks shall find; Who sits with folded hands or sleeps is blind." This describes Oedipus very well because as soon as he heard the killer of Laius was in the city, he tried to seek him out and in turn found the whole truth about the killer, himself, and his past.
    If Oedipus had known that he was adopted from the start, none of this would have happened. Oedipus was a compassionate man and never wanted to hurt anyone, least of all his parents, which is why he ran away. Had Oedipus known the truth, he would have stayed with his adoptive parents for he would not have to worry about fulfilling the prophecy through them.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Question 2

    When Oedipus the King was written gods played a major role in people’s lives. God’s were the determining factor of all things good and bad. They would play a role on people’s emotions and feelings throughout the day. The Gods were something that people could blame or praise for the strange things that happened to them. The text used in the play suggests that there is a subversive response. Everything that happened to Oedipus was a part of gods plans for him. From him not knowing that he was the cause of his father’s death to his blindness teaching him, finding knowledge, and being able to “see” once blind. The gods led him to look for knowledge of who he was and because of that he learned a lot and lost some stuff as well. The search for knowledge led him to suffer and eventually lose his wife/mother Jocasta. Jocasta even mentioned “… I had the thought to go to the God’s temples…” in lines 974- 975. She also stated that Oedipus was making no sense.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Question 1:
    Oedipus supports the theme of knowledge perfectly. The instant he finds out that he might have been the murderer of Laius, his father, he becomes desperate to find the killer. In the beginning, Oedipus is completely ignorant of his position. He has no idea who he really is, or that he killed his father and slept with his mother. Without this knowledge, there is no conflict, no problem. Knowledge is displayed as a good and bad thing, however.
    Tiresias, the blind prophet, is all knowing, but he is a good character. He is respected because he knows so much, so his knowledge is a good thing. However, the harmful knowledge he gives Oedipus about the prophecy becomes the king’s downfall. Jocasta’s knowledge is her downfall as well. She figures out her predicament before Oedipus does, and so kills herself. This is a key point in which it is revealed that knowledge can be harmful. After discovering the truth, Jocasta says “God keep you from the knowledge of who you are! (1586) This indicates that knowledge is a bad thing, and that Jocasta knows that it will lead to Oedipus’s destruction.
    Aristotle states that “All men by nature desire to know.” This is entirely correct, and is Oedipus’s downfall. In theory, his actual downfall is the fact that he slept with his mother and killed his father. I disagree with that. I believe that his downfall occurred when knowledge was gained, long after both crimes had been committed.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Question 2:
    In the time period in which Oedipus was written, the Gods were everything. They were behind everything and everyone, and created the fate of all citizens. Because of this mentality, Oedipus created a very subversive response of the audience. The fact that it was Oedipus’s fate to have such a dramatic downfall invoked anger in every audience member. How could the Gods be so cruel?
    Sophocles continues this trend with the prophecy itself, which highlights the dark side of the Gods. From the perspective of an audience member, it must have seemed incredibly cruel of the Gods to create so much disaster for Oedipus.
    The play also tells of what happens when you defy the Gods. In order to avoid the prophecy, Oedipus left his adoptive parents, hoping to evade his fate. However, the play showed that there is no escaping fate, or the Gods. Regardless of his leaving, his fate caught up with him, so he still slept with his mother and murdered his father. In addition, the play creates an undermining threat of authority. The grand leader and king of Thebes, Oedipus, is actually a murderer. This suggests that he is not the only one, and that those with authority are naturally bad people, and potential murderers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would have to agree with you Katie the gods were everything and did decide the fates of those on earth and the play did an amazing job of citing this as a tragedy by underpinning a good guy but his character defect lead to his demise in the eyes and hands of the gods.

      Delete
  44. Question 1:

    The theme of knowledge is exemplified through Oedipus’ search for the truth of the death of King Laius that in turn becomes the fulfillment of the prophecy. From the beginning Oedipus calls upon the citizens for knowledge of the King’s murder, he swears to discover the truth and curses those who seek to hide the truth from him. This search for knowledge was true to human nature, but it wasn’t just the desire to know, it was also his desire to uphold his duty as King. So yes, it was within his human to discover the unknown, but in this case Oedipus is more basing his quest for knowledge off of duty rather than desire. He even states, “Since I am now the holder of his office/and have his bed and wife that was once his/…I fight in his deference as for my father/” (Lines 273-278). Oedipus is saying that his search for the truth is because he is now King, subconsciously he could have been searching because of his desire for knowledge; however, in this case he only sees his search as one of duty.
    Taking the subconscious route of the desire for knowledge with Oedipus the desire for knowledge is the finest of human attributes, but the result of this desire is what puts a damper on the characteristic. It’s the best in Oedipus because it aids the characters in self-realization. Jocasta was able to understand how her past deeds, mostly her reaction to the prophecy and her son, had no use against fat. As a result she killed herself. Her discovery of knowledge helped her realize the truth, and was therefore good; however is also resulted in her committing suicide. With Oedipus, his search for knowledge resulted in his discovering the wrongs of his past, killing his father and sleeping with his mother, but it was able to let him realize the truth; he was no longer blind to knowledge. Despite this self-discovering knowledge, it ended in his banishment and literal blindness. Again, the trait is excellent because it helps one discover themselves, for better of for worse, it’s simply the outcome of that desire that makes the attribute appear so negative.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Questions 2:

    Oedipus the King controls potentially subversive responses from the audience. Throughout the entire work there is one theme that no one can escape: fate. Teiresias initially brings up this idea of inescapable fate by telling Oedipus, “I am no slave/of yours, but Loxias.” (Lines 452-453). This invite the idea that what the prophet knows (everything) is unchanging, the fate of the world is at his fingertips and he knows all- this threat of a fate that can’t be changed is directed at the audience. In society at this time, the Gods were everything; they defined what their society was. Therefore that underlining threat of the gods controlling one’s fate stippled any rebellious thoughts of the audience because this story illustrates the idea that avoiding the will of the gods will only worsen your fate.
    Jocasta is a prime example for this. After learning of the prophecy she chooses to get rid of her child that would one day bed her and kill her husband. She tried to avoid fate, and instead of simply bedding her son -a fact that is assumed to be inescapable- she ends up rejecting her child, bedding her son, and killing herself after learning how her choices brought her to her own fate. It implies the idea that messing with the authority of the God’s will only bring on a worse fate. This can be carried into authority figures; often these figures are one’s that speak with the Gods such as Teiresias. When a ruler has a prophet that speaks for them, much like the relationship between Creon and Teiresias, they have more power because they are backed up by the unchanging power of the Gods. Therefore the power of authority goes hand in hand with the will of fate. This kind of power is threatening, the fact that Jocasta ends up committing suicide and Oedipus gouges out his eyes only emphasizes the idea. The audience is controlled by this subtle threat, they submit to the will of the gods because of it, and therefore the play most definitely controls any rebellion within the society.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that there is subversive content but is it really directed at the gods. At the time the people of Greece were afraid of what the gods might do to them if they gave them lip per say. And the only people to do any misdeeds were people.

      Delete
  46. The desire of human nature to know or to understand is in itself one of the best things about human nature and the worst at the same time. In Oedipus this desire to know leads to a path of ruin not just for Oedipus but for Jocasta but the Chores and the people of Thebes. Oedipus's desire to know who killed his father drives the proficiency forward as the irony for the audience builds.The desire to know drives the proficiency to come true and is what leads Oedipus to fulfill the proficiency layed out when he was just a baby.the Death of Jocasta also drives this home as she figures out what she has done is another motivator i which the desire to know is bad. But on the flip side knowledge is also inherently good and bring the people of Thebes both pain and turmoil but stability and understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I just realized that I could do the second one sorry for the late response.

    In Oedipus the King (<--underlined) one of the underlying themes of the story is the people's anger at authority; this is shown by the citizens' unfaltering trust of Oedipus and then the betrayal the people felt when their fearless leader was found guilty of an unforgivable crime. In the last lines of the play the chorus taunt Oedipus for his tarnished soul, "see him now and see the breakers of misfortune swallow him!"
    During this time period this was a stab at the authoritative figures, and furthermore a very bold move on Sophocles part considering that it was those authoritative figures who were paying for his plays to be aired. With out a doubt this play was trying to get the people of Greece to question the competency of their officials; this ploy could have been an attempt to increase democracy by getting better officials elected.
    This play was not directed to the gods however because the gods are the only ones who do nothing wrong, there is no blame given to the gods for Oedipus' actions or anyone else s for that matter. And most of all the people of Greece were terrified of the god's wrath so they would not have tried to question them.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nick, you make an interesting point in your post. I disagree with you in regard to the people feeling betrayed. Rather, I think the quote you included, "see him now and see the breakers of misfortune swallow him!" shows deep sorrow and adds to the tragedy of the entire play. But I like the point you get to about the play working to have Grecians question their government officials. I'm not 100% certain that they didn't endow their elected officials with god-like qualities, but that would be a point for research and followup. Well done.

      Delete
  48. Q2: In "Oedipus Rex", Sophocles was able to subtly invite the audience to subversive response. Specifically, towards the head of the States. Oedipus, although a good ruler, placed himself as the powerful being. "Well, I will start afresh and once again..." is what he told to Creon when he had returned from the temple in the beginning. Oedipus believed he was in control, but not so. The city was punished, along with Oedipus, for following the man who defies the gods. The audience would consider whether their ruler is qualified or not, based off what occurred to Oedipus.

    ReplyDelete
  49. All tragic plays main character has a tragic flaw, and in this case it is the need to know. Oedipus is so curious about the murder that he cannot give up his search for the wrongdoer. Because of this, he eventually ruins everything for everyone. However, A desire for knowledge is NOT to be made to be a sin. They say that too much curiosity is bad, and will lead to people questioning the leaders, or in this case, the gods. It is true that too much curiosity is bad, but it has two sides. As Oedipus learns more, the people around him suffer more and more. Somehow Oedipus doesn't learn anything at all, and continues searching against all warnings. "O Oedipus, God help you! /
    God keep you from the knowledge of who you are," (Lines 1222-1223) says Jocasta as she realizes who Oedipus is. Even with his wife/ mothers warning, he cannot find any reason to quit his search. This is the dark side of curiosity, for Oedipus's search eventually kills his mother as she commits suicide.
    The other side is a much brighter curiosity. The search to find new truths and facts leads to the growth of a culture. As Oedipus searches, he hurts those directly around him but is setting his city free from the plague that surrounds them. Because he is trying to do the right thing, he cannot give up. The human nature of being curious leads to Oedipus's demise, but rescues his city. Curiosity is neither wrong nor right, it simply depends on how it is used.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Truly sorry for the late response

    Oedipus the King delves into the theme of knowledge with a passion. From the very beginning of the play, Oedipus seeks to find the solution to Thebe’s suffering. When, he does find out the solution of finding the murderer of Laius, he is relentless in his quest to discover the truth. His journey to know who the killer is ultimately exposes his own painful fate. Therefore, by trying to seek knowledge, Oedipus reveals that his innate human nature of desiring to know can be more harmful than not knowing.

    Jocasta realizes before Oedipus that knowledge is dangerous and hurtful when she pleads, “I beg you-do not hunt this out-I beg you, / if you have any care for your own life. / What I am suffering is enough” (1122-1124). She has already begun to unveil the unfortunate truth of Oedipus’ fate and attempts to prevent him from continuing to hunt for the same ugly knowledge. What Jocasta does for the theme of knowledge is to portray that understanding the reality can be devastating and have devastating effects despite the prospect of glorified wisdom. Although Oedipus initially believed that learning who the killer of Laius was would help him save Thebes and increase his reputation immensely, Jocasta peers through the guise of this knowledge and quickly grasps the concept that it will only bring ruin and sorrow.

    The play decisively outlines that the human desire to seek knowledge is not unprofitable, but is foolish. Oedipus does gain his knowledge and finally unearths his fate, opening his eyes to the world. However, the reward of this knowledge was not without the considerable cost of his mom/wife, his eyes, his children, and most importantly, his reputation as the leader of Thebes. He pushed too far past the limit of the knowledge he wanted to gain and he lost everything except his knowledge. Oedipus the King accurately reveals the benefits of the truth deceptively the punishments of knowledge until it is discovered.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Question 1:
    In the play Oedipus Rex by Sophocles, the prophecy is a central role to each character’s actions but knowledge, and the search for it, is the driving force behind those actions. Without knowing the prophecy, it would never have been completed. Oedipus would have known who he was and would have grown up with his actual parents. He may have killed his father in a power play to gain the kingdom sooner but he would not have slept with his mother. Only part of the prophecy would have come true. By having knowledge of the prophecy each character’s actions made it come to pass. In this sense knowledge was the detrimental factor in the play. “There was an oracle once that came to Laius,/ and it told him it was his fate to die a victim at the hands of his own son” (817,820). It was Laius and Jocasta’s knowledge of their fate by the hands of their own son that caused them to cast Oedipus away as a child. This create’s Oedipus’s lack of knowledge and his quest to find the truth.
    Oedipus’s drive to find the truth is a large component of the tragedy that befalls him and Jocasta. Without the hunger for the knowledge of who he is Oedipus would have lived out his days happily married to his mother, oblivious to his situation. The hunt for the truth of his heritage is the basis of the play and creates the tragedy aspect. The knowledge of who Oedipus is causes him only grief and leads to the decision to poke his eyes out with brooches. The only rewarding aspect of the truth is Oedipus finally knows who he truly is but this is greatly overshadowed by the turmoil he feels.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hannah, I dispute a statement you make early on . . ."Without knowing the prophecy, it would never have been completed" The prophecy was already in full swing when Oedipus started poking around looking for answers. I commend you on sticking to your argument throughout your post - you exhibit good control of your idea, but I'd counsel you to take a look at Kooper H.'s response for another look at this topic.

      Delete
  52. Question 2:
    Oedipus Rex conservatively controls a subversive response because Oedipus and Jocasta try to defy the Gods. One of the Chorus men states: “Truly Zeus and Apollo are wise/ and in human things all knowing;”(578,579), indicating it is folly to try and circumvent the Gods; they know all that was, all that is, and all that will come to pass. It is better to accept their word passed down through the prophets rather than try to create a new path, as both Oedipus and Jocasta tried to do. Oedipus even states, “And it is I,/ I and no other have so cursed myself.” showing Oedipus believes he himself is to blame for the tragedy, not the Gods.
    Through out the play The Gods are blamed for the prophecy being fulfilled but the story itself suggests the character’s actions, and avoidance of the prophecy, are what lead to it’s fulfillment. The Gods are simply aware of what will happen to each character. This undermines the “victim” label often assigned to Oedipus and shows him as responsible for his own actions. Such a man is not to be pitied or sympathized with and by creating Oedipus as a man responsible for himself, Sophocles is diverting the blame from the Gods.

    ReplyDelete
  53. After the discussion in last class i would have to say that the Gods determine how the powers of knowledge are given, were to be good or to be bad. Human nature is to be curious and back in the days of Oedipus the people looked to the gods for everything, food, water, children all of these things were decided by the gods.And by This fact the desire for Oedipus to gain knowledge, wither it be who killed his father, or the truth about Jocasta Oedipus fallows human nature to a tea. We have to remember the Oedipus is a good guy but his charter defects along with the will of the gods plays into the outcome of the play by not only fulfilling the prophesy but also influencing the actions of everyone around them. As the people looked to the leaders as having a connection to the god. Knowledge can come with great power as into rule those who know no, but it is also a road to ruin as knowledge brings charter flaws to the surface. The desire for knowledge is what makes Oedipus a tragety but is also the core of human nature.

    ReplyDelete
  54. That wraps this blog post. Nice work, people.

    Please remember to write your post in Word so you can proofread before posting to the blog. You are the most talented writers in the building and your published work should always reflect your abilities.

    ReplyDelete
  55. I believe when Aristotle says "All men by nature desire to know" is completely true. Oedipus only cared about his city of Thebes before he knew about the prophecy. When he did know he went out of his way to prove it wrong, or to get the knowledge he needed. Man always wants to know. Whether it has anything to do with them or not. It is first human nature and always will be.

    ReplyDelete