You MUST REFER to specific parts of Aristotle's DEFINITION BELOW when you "JOIN THE CONVERSATION" (that's a hint) and SUPPORT YOUR OWN ARGUMENT.
Extra credit for the strongest argument.
Aristotle (the philosopher who wrote about the beauty of art) believed that Oedipus the King was the prototypical example of a "tragic hero." Read each part of his definition below. Then, decide to what extent you agree with Aristotle's idea that Oedipus is the perfect representative of a tragic hero.
From Aristotle's Poetics:
1. The tragic hero is a character of noble stature and has greatness. The character must occupy a "high" status position but must ALSO embody nobility and virtue as part of his/her innate character.
2. Though the tragic hero is pre-eminently great, he/she is not perfect. Otherwise, the rest of us--mere mortals--would be unable to identify with the tragic hero. We should see in him or her someone who is essentially like us, although perhaps elevated to a higher position in society.
3. The hero's downfall, therefore, is partially her/his own fault, the result of free choice, not of accident or villainy or some overriding, malignant fate. In fact, the tragedy is usually triggered by some error of judgment or some character flaw that contributes to the hero's lack of perfection noted above. This error of judgment or character flaw is known as hamartia and is usually translated as "tragic flaw" (although some scholars argue that this is a mistranslation). Often the character's hamartia involves hubris (which is defined as a sort of arrogant pride or over-confidence). True for Oedipus? Make your claim.
4. The hero's misfortunate is not wholly deserved. The punishment exceeds the crime. True for Oedipus? Make your claim.
5. The fall is not pure loss. There is some increase in awareness, some gain in self-knowledge, some discovery on the part of the tragic hero. True for Oedipus? Make your claim.
6. Though it arouses solemn emotion, tragedy does not leave its audience in a state of depression. Aristotle argues that one function of tragedy is to arouse the "unhealthy" emotions of pity and fear and through a catharsis (which comes from watching the tragic hero's terrible fate) cleanse us of those emotions.True for "Oedipus"? Make your claim.
For extra credit, read all of the following claims about the play "Oedipus." They all connect to one another. Then, "join the conversation."
For Oedipus, there exists his temper, his unrelenting pursuit of the truth, and his suspicion. His temper is exhibited in the argument between Teiresias and himself, where Teiresias states the truth and Oedipus replies, “Do you think you can say such things with impunity?”(p.36) and later calls Teiresias a “shameless and brainless, sightless, senseless sot!” (p.36). His suspicion was also shown in this exchange where he says, “Creon! Was this trick his, then, if not yours?”(p.36). Lastly, his unrelenting pursuit of the truth is demonstrated when he finally believes he is the murderer and Polybus was not his father, and yet he still continues with his search, saying, “I must pursue this trail to the end”(p.55). These characteristics were only fuel to the fire and added to the pride created a blaze that consumed him.Oedipus' tragic flaw (his hamartia) was pride; the Greeks called it hubris. He thought too highly of himself, believed himself to be invincible, and he had the arrogance to keep asking questions when he knew he should have stopped.
--IB paper posted online
Somehow, "hubris" (ungodly pride, arrogance, and so forth) has come to be identified as the usual tragic fault of Oedipus. I cannot understand why. But whenever something bad happens to a basically good person in a tragedy, students are invited to see "hubris." Why can't we just accept that in Sophocles ' world, bad things happen for no reason? Is it because teachers are afraid to let their students in on a dirty little secret: if there are gods, they are capricious and malicious.
--Ed Friedlander, doctor and literary critic
"The flaw, or crack in the character [of Oedipus], is really nothing -- and need be nothing -- but his inherent unwillingness to remain passive in the face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity, his image of his rightful status. Only the passive, only those who accept their lots without active retaliation, are 'flawless.' Most of us are in that category. The terror and the fear that is classically associated with tragedy comes, ultimately, from questioning the unquestioned.
--Arthur Miller, author of "Death of a Salesman"
29 comments:
Hello it's dominika, *waves*
Although I agree with Aristotle up to a point, I cannot completely accept his overall conclusions that, "the hero's downfall, therefore, is partially her/his own fault, the result of free choice, not of accident or villainy or some overriding, malignant fate." Oedipus was cursed from birth that wasn't his fault wasn't his fault. It was fated for Oedipus to kill his father and to marry his mother. His parents tried to stop that from ever happening by stalking Oedipus to a mountain and Oedipus even attempted to escape his fate by running away from his mother and father, and it wasn't his fault that he was unaware that they really weren't his biological parents. Other then that I agree with all of Aristotle's other definitions, especially #2, "Though the tragic hero is pre-eminently great, he/she is not perfect. Otherwise, the rest of us--mere mortals--would be unable to identify with the tragic hero. We should see in him or her someone who is essentially like us, although perhaps elevated to a higher position in society." Oedipus is a king but he does have flaws and he isn't invincible, it takes his home made god quality away from him and that does help him become more comparable to regular mortals.
This is Julie Mei! :)
I will have to disagree with some of Aristotle's definition of "tragic hero" for Oedipus. One of his definition, "The hero's downfall, therefore, is partially his own fault, the result of free choice, not of accident or villainy or some overriding, malignant, fate," is false for Oedipus. He had no choice BUT to kill his father and bed with his mother because it was already planned out. In the story, one of his lines mentioned "a net of death that was already woven for him" already proves that his life wasn't in his control. Also, it was his father who came to him that caused Oedipus to kill him. Although many people would say that Oedipus is a tragic hero, I claim what happened to him is just tragic. His fate was already made for him ever since he was born, like Dominika said. His parents, too, know what happened and wanted to prevent it from happening. But instead, it came right back at them and bit them in the butt. Coincidence? I think not. I agree with Ed Friedlander that in Sophocles' worldview, bad things just happen for no reason.
This is Jasmin,
I have to disagree with some of Aristotle's ideas. Aristotle claims that "The hero's downfall, therefore, is partially her/his own fault, the result of free choice, not of accident or villainy or some overriding, malignant fate." I agree with what Dominika said and think that this idea doesn't exactly define a tragic hero. Oedipus's future was already planned for him. The Oracle told Oedipus's parents exactly what would happened to him in the future when he was small. Seeing that it still happened, even though his parents tried to kill him to avoid the situation, shows that he had no control over it. I also disagree with Aristotle's idea that "Though it arouses solemn emotion, tragedy does not leave its audience in a state of depression. Aristotle argues that one function of tragedy is to arouse the "unhealthy" emotions of pity and fear and through a catharsis (which comes from watching the tragic hero's terrible fate) cleanse us of those emotions." I disagree with this, because in some cases tragic heroes do in fact leave their audiences in sorrow or depression. In "Oedipus", the author states "We envied him, we loved him, we admired him. Now he is drowned in a sea of eternal pain. Count no man happy till he dies" (pg 62). This line creates a sense of sorrow. Oedipus's downfall caused pity and sorrow upon the audience.
hello its yesenia carabez Although I agree with Aristotle up to a point, I cannot accept his overall conclusions that “The hero's downfall, therefore, is partially her/his own fault, the result of free choice, not of accident or villainy or some overriding, malignant fate. In fact, the tragedy is usually triggered by some error of judgment or some character flaw that contributes to the hero's lack of perfection noted above.”(3). I completely disagree with this belief. It wasn’t Oedipus’s fault that he married his mother and killed his father. It was a curse. This was just one of those things that no matter how hard you try, you just won’t be able to avoid it. His rise and downfall was all in the hands of fate. People don’t really have control of their lives. Of course their decisions now will affect them later, but what was meant to be was meant to be even if its not what you want. Oedipus was a good leader and didn’t knowingly do anything wrong. His life was cursed, so no matter what decision he would have made, the end result would have been the same.
Hej
Co tam.
Hi I am Erica Castillo
Aristotle has suggested that “the hero’s downfall, therefore , is partially her/his own fault, the result of free choice, not of accident or villainy or some overriding, malignant fate."
I would say I do agree with Aristotle with a hero’s downfall. I disagree with Julie and Dominika, because they both blame God and fate for “tragic hero” for Oedipus. In today’s world we want to blame God and Fate when bad things happen that we can’t explain but in reality it is out fault.
Oedipus had a choice, but he picked the wrong choice. When Oedipus came to the three roads that meet he could of picked any of the roads. Which suggest that Oedipus had other options. When the herald came toward Oedipus, Oedipus could of went another way. He could of only hit everyone that was there one time but he kept hitting them until he killed them all. He only beat and killed the men because he had anger from people telling him that he was not Polybus son. He would of not had this anger and he would of never left Corinth if Polybus and Corinth told him the truth about who he was.
Also, his real parents had a choice but there choice was to listen to the Gods. Only if they had thought outside of the box this story would not be about a hero’s downfall. If Oedipus real parents would of said “No our son will love us he will not kill us” This would of not happen. The God saw the future, that he wanted his parents to see. The God knew if he told Oedipus real parents the story of there son and how he would kill the father and sleep
with the mother, his parents would want to get rid of him. By getting rid of Oedipus.
They made a choice that set there destiny.
We have control of our destiny. We can do things to out life that can lead us to great or horrible goals in life. We pick our life.
This is Ashley Hart... YAY!
Even though I agree with Aristotle portraying a tragic hero as someone who "embodies nobility and virtue," I disaggree that the hero's "downfall is their own fault." As a child, Oedipus was cursed by the Gods. His fate was determined before he had the chance to pursue life. This shows us that no matter what decision Oedipus made he was going to end up sleeping with his mother and killing his father. Thus fulfilling the prophecy that was forced upon him.
Aristotle also states, "the fall is not pure loss." When Oedipus finds out that he has actually slayed his father and married to his mother, he gouges his eyes out and begs to be exiled. I do not understand the lesson that Oedipus gained from losing his wife, mother, kids, and kingdom all at once. He knows that he has shamed himself and his kingdom but there is ultimatly nothing there to be learned.
I also disagree when Aristotle states, "Though the tragic hero is pre-eminently great, he/she is not perfect." Although I feel that a hero should be able to connect with the common people, I don't believe a should be imperfect. I feel that a hero should be someone that people see as perfection. That is what makes their downfall so tragic. By choosing to create imperfections in the character, especially Oedipus, shows that anyone can be a hero. Although Oedipus did save his kingdom once during the plagues and gouged his eyes out while begging to be exiled, we can't be sure he was being heroic for his people. One can even say that he was just terribly ashamed of himself and couldn't handle the pressure his wrong doings and wanted to rid himself of the pain.
Aristotle has suggested that Oedipus is a perfect example of a "tragic hero". As defined in his work "Poetics", a "tragic hero" is one of higher society, a sort of role model to his/her people by which he/she is loved, yet he/she is not perfect because "Otherwise, the rest of us--mere mortals--would be unable to identify with the tragic hero." It is ironic that Aristotle mentions, "We should see in him or her someone who is essentially like us, although perhaps elevated to a higher position in society", because Oedipus was, in fact, born into a position of high status, yet his parents rejected him, leaving it up to him to later on in his life unknowingly fall into the higher society once again.
However perfectly Aristotle was able to connect the commons between us mortals and our "tragic hero" (in this case Oedipus), he fails to correctly apply the obviously crucial role of fate in Oedipus' life. Although I grant that Oedipus had become extremely lost in his arrogance-his hubris- to realize the extremities of certain situations, I still maintain confidence in the Athenian belief of an omnipotent God and manifest destiny. Though I concede that Oedipus was naive for trying to run away from fate in the first place only to approach true fate for the person he did not know he was, I still insist that every life is fated and the doomed cannot escape damnation, however undeserving or otherwise. Oedipus was simply born into damnation by the Gods, whom placed upon him a disturbing fate in which he would kill his father and bed his mother. I almost fully disagree Aristotle here: "The hero's downfall, therefore, is partially her/his own fault, the result of free choice, not of accident or villainy or some overriding, malignant fate." His parents, as cruel as they were (definitely not the heroes here), had him staked at his feet on the mountain top to die, believing that the death of their son would annul his terrible destiny. What they did not know, however, is that fate cannot be escaped. The irony is in the fact that Oedipus believed he would run from Cadmus and escape his destiny, only to later find out that he had instead run into it. Thus, YOU CANNOT ESCAPE FATE. By focusing on the tragedy of Oedipus' life being steered by fate, some may overlook the deeper problem of how, at some point, his pride did hurt him in certain situations. However, the fact that "if there are gods, they are capricious and malicious" (Ed Friedlander, doctor and literary critic) overshadows this and works to further the beliefs of Sophocles in contrast to those of Aristotle.
Aristotle is right that "The hero's misfortunate is not wholly deserved. The punishment exceeds the crime", but he seems to be on more dubious grounds when he claims that "the fall is not pure loss. There is some increase in awareness, some gain in self-knowledge, some discovery on the part of the tragic hero." Oedipus is not wholly deserving, however arrogant he is, because fate does not show sympathy. His punishment does not exceed the crime he committed, but it is unfair for him to suffer when it was the immorality of his parents, and his fall is more of a gain because his true identity was finally revealed to him. The irony in this situation is that he finds out who he truly is, yet, at that point, the truth makes him despise his identity and want to disappear from the face of the earth in punishment.
I must agree here: "tragedy does not leave its audience in a state of depression". I believe that fate played its role in the story of Oedipus, however unfair it may be.
So, overall, I agree with Aristotle on some points he has made in his work "Poetics", but some I only partially agree upon.
Hey it's Jon! :]
Although I agree with Aristotle at some points of his tragic definition, I cannot accept Aristotle's conclusion that the tragic fate of a hero is triggered by a tragic flaw, at least in Oedipus' case.
In Greek mythology the three Fates are weavers of people's destinies, and whichever way they decide the thread to go, the person's destiny is chosen. From the day Oedipus was born he was cursed to kill his father and bed his mother. Oedipus was a pure child but was already doomed.
I do, however, agree with Aristotle on his claim that the hero's misfortune is not wholly deserved. Oedipus proves not to be perfect. He ran away from home and committed murder, but those incidents never would have happened if not for the curse bestowed upon him by the gods. The fate he met in the end was a drastic and terrible ending, not even the most evil of humans receive.
Also, I slightly agree with Aristotle on his claim that there is some self discovery on the part of the tragic hero. As unfair as the tragic end Oedipus faced was, we can still learn the lesson to never cross the gods. Our fate is to be decided by them and no one else. Although I may not agree with this personally, that could be the message that was meant to get across in the ancient times this play was preformed.
Finally, I agree with the idea of Catharsis but I am not so sure it can apply to Oedipus. In Oedipus we can see the many misfortunes that befall him, in his path to do the right thing. Oedipus may have committed terrible acts such as bedding his mother and murdering his father, but we can see that it was not his fault. You can't help but feel sorry for Oedipus and feel depressed because he had to endure this wicked end.
Although I completely agree with the majority of Aristotle's definitions of a "tragic hero", I slightly disagree with his claim that this tragic hero's downfall is partially her/his own fault. In the case of Oedipus it is clearly shown that a hero's downfall is not in his own control. The Gods prophesized that Oedipus was to: kill his father and marry his mother. It was his fate to commit such actions. Through out the play we see Oedipus' effort to prevent realizing the prophecy and how he fails. Obviously he tried to avoid everyone pain and misfortune but fate conquered his good intentions. Oedipus was innocent and unaware of the consequence to his impulsive actions (ex: killing Laius and his men, marrying his mother without knowing anything about her). Hence, he partially contributed to his own downfall accidentally. Unconsciously he was fulfilling the prophecy but not willingly. Since he was disowned by his biological parents, he believed his adopted parents were his real parents.
I am of two minds about Arthur Miller's claim that "the terror and the fear that is classically associated with tragedy comes, ultimately, from questioning the unquestioned." On the one hand, I agree that questioning the unquestioned does bring about such emotions associated with tragedy. On the other hand, I am not sure if "only the passive... are, flawless." By questioning the unquestioned we inform ourselves of possibilities we never thought of. Sometimes this might lead us to fear since we are not ready to accept such things that are. When Miller says that only the passive are flawless, I must say, he makes no sense to me. Just because someone does not act upon certain things and take actions does not mean they are perfect. Wouldn't that make them imperfect? Shouldn’t we all voice our opinions and interact with others to hear their opinions? Obviously it is not healthy to live inside our heads so, how do such actions make a passive person "flawless"? They should be encouraged to express themselves and be as flawed as every other human being.
-Rocio
Hello, it's Justyna ;)
**Referring to "Aristotle Poetics" #3**
Although many people including Aristotle may feel that Oedipus's fate was partially his fault, I have to disagree with such a claim. Aristotle also claims that: "the tragedy is usually triggered by some error of judgment or some character flaw that contributes to the hero's lack of perfection noted above." I don't believe that what Oedipus did was his own fault in any way. He couldn't help or change the fate that was meant for him according to the Gods. Oedipus's time was when people believed in such prophecies and they usually came true (according to the story of Oedipus the King). So, I wouldn't say that Oedipus's tragedy wasd any of his fault. He simply became victim to a cruel destiny, which if it was meant to happen it would've one way or another.
**Referring to "Artistotle's Poetics"** #4
Although I agree with Aristotle up to a point, I don't completely accept his overall conclusion that: "The hero's misfortunate is not wholly deserved. The punishment exceeds the crime". In this case, Oedipus couldn't have done a worse thing than kill his father and sleep with his mother even if he didn't know what he was doing. Looking at it more "religiously" it's a crime that would be very difficult to forgive and forget..it's nearly impossible and deserves the strictest critique. In the end, I think that Oedipus deserved what became of him. He lost everything, his wife, his children, his sight and finally his life. It's a sorrowful ending, but he deserved it...
**Referring to "Aristotle's Poetics"** #5
Aristotle has suggested that: "The fall is not pure loss. There is some increase in awareness, some gain in self-knowledge, some discovery on the part of the tragic hero". I have to agree with this one. Oedipus did have a tragic fate, but thanks to this 'experience" he found out who he truely was..he found his identity. It was a painful "crash" with his identity, but at least that's something he got out of the whole mess. He found out where he was from, who his parents were and the whole story with his eventual "adoption", etc.
**Referring to "Aristotle's Poetics" #6
Aristotle suggests that: "Though it arouses solemn emotion, tragedy does not leave its audience in a state of depression. Aristotle argues that one function of tragedy is to arouse the "unhealthy" emotions of pity and fear and through a catharsis (which comes from watching the tragic hero's terrible fate) cleanse us of those emotions". I feel this way because it is true that this tragedy got out of us emotions such as fear for the characters as well as pity. I did fell fearful for Oedipus as to what was about to happen to him and I felt sorry for him as well that he had to go through all that. Even though we felt the way we did, those emotions did not leave us in a state of depression of course!! Afterall, it was only a story and not real life. So, Aristotle was right in making such a claim....
***Extra Credit***
Although some may disagree, I feel that the different claims are related because they talk about Oedipus's sense of pride in himself. Sometimes he acted as if he was better than everyone else just because he was king. He couldn't believe how someone could "plot against him" in any way (as he believed Tiresias and Creon to be doing by making him think that he was the killer, which eventually became to be the truth)...
I think that Aristotle is mistaken because he overlooks that fact that Oedipus was a murder. Aristotle seems to strongly believe that Oedipus was nothing more than a “tragic hero.” I would have to disagree with Aristotle calling Oedipus a tragic hero only because he describes a tragic hero as “noble and having greatness.” I feel that Oedipus cannot be called a tragic hero because of the past and present conflicts that he has gotten involved in. Also, I would have to disagree with the statements made by Aristotle in #3. His choice to say “The hero’s downfall, therefore, is partially her/his own fault’ this has token away from the fact that Oedipus has already has his fate decided for him. This included killing his father and marrying his mother. It just seems that the murder of Oedipus father by Oedipus is been seen as tragic flaw by Aristotle instead of the obvious been a bloody murder. Another disagreement comes when Aristotle talks about how Oedipus’s punishment may have been too much. “The hero’s misfortunate is not wholly deserved. The punishment exceeds the crime. True for Oedipus?” I don’t agree with this statement because I feel that an Oedipus should feel the pain and suffering that they conflicted on his father. Ultimately, I would have to disagree with all Aristotle views about the behavior, downfall, and punishment of Oedipus the King.
Steven Gallardo
In most cases we believe that we can have control in our lives. In this story, fate has our lives planned already. i agree with most of what Aristotle had to say just as Dominika said. Aristotle states that, "In fact, the tragedy is usually triggered by some error of judgment or some character flaw that contributes to the hero's lack of perfection noted above". this is true for Oedipus becuase he did have a few mistakes he made but were ultimately decided by fate beforehand. "The hero's misfortunate is not wholly deserved. The punishment exceeds the crime". In this story, fate has a horrible plot that even a good man that saved the city before, is sadening. "There is some increase in awareness, some gain in self-knowledge, some discovery on the part of the tragic hero". Yes he does know the truth behind the lies but it is heartbreaking to know this as would it be for anyone who had this realization. Even though he finnaly knew the truth that cleared his past, he went insane. "Though it arouses solemn emotion, tragedy does not leave its audience in a state of depression". This i do not agree on because it made me depressed how fate turned against Oedipus this way. For the clain by the IB paper, they state "He thought too highly of himself, believed himself to be invincible, and he had the arrogance to keep asking questions when he knew he should have stopped". In the world of sophocles, questioning the king would be outrageous. In this case, Oedipus has heard the same claim by several men incuding his prophets about his past and still doesn't believe, showing neglegence. Oedipus was a man that wanted his life as it was then and wanted no trouble, even by avoiding the truth.
Although I agree with Aristotle up to a point, I CANNOT ACCEPT his overall conclusions that "the hero's downfall, therefore, is partially her/his own fault, the result of free choice, not of accident or villainy or some overriding, malignant fate." Aristotle goes on to say "in fact, the tragedy is usually triggered by some error of judgment or some character flaw that contributes to the hero's lack of perfection noted above." Oedipus was innocent!!! His life was prepared in advanced by destiny.
On page 34, Jocasta said " We had a son, but when he was three days old Laius pierced his ankles, left him on a hill to die...We knew then that Apollo had changed the course of fate....the terror of the prophecy would die there on the hills." These quotes from Jocasta clearly reveal what most of the 3rd period AP class believes is true, which is Oedipus is not a fault for his actions(killing his father and bedding his mother). He did what he did by force not choice.
However, I am in agreement with all other conclusions stated by Aristotle.
Egder Dominguez
In “Poetics,” Aristotle has suggested that Oedipus is the perfect example of a tragic hero. I fully agree with his claim as no other character can more perfectly fit his definition better than Oedipus. In fact, Aristotle modeled his definition after Oedipus as he had already read the story before creating his definition.
For example, the first definition “The character must occupy a "high" status position but must ALSO embody nobility and virtue as part of his/her innate character,” is clearly intended for Oedipus. He holds a high position as he is the King of Thebes and also has the excellent virtues such as when he solved the Sphinx’s riddle. The definition #2 “although perhaps elevated to a higher position in society,” refers to how Oedipus was at first a simple young man, then chosen by the people of Thebes as their king.
I believe most of my classmates have misinterpreted Aristotle’s definition #3 because it does not just suggest that free will was the entire cause of his downfall. They have forgot to analyze the part “the tragedy is usually triggered by some error of judgment or some character flaw that contributes to the hero's lack of perfection noted above,” as Oedipus’ flaw was that of having hubris. Oedipus was so prideful and loyal to his people that he was willing to leave the country in order to rid the people of his curse.
Similarly, definition #4’s claim that “The punishment exceeds the crime,” also applies to Oedipus. He could have chosen to instead die rather than live the rest of his life in shame. Killing your own father is a serious crime, but he was unaware of who the man was that he had killed. Aristotle fifth definition of there being “some discovery on the part of the tragic hero,” is the truth that was finally revealed to him. This definition would not fit him if he had just been killed without knowing of the prophecy, but this was not the case.
The sixth definition of “tragedy does not leave its audience in a state of depression,” is attributed to the overall end effect after reading or viewing “Oedipus the King.” The audience does pity Oedipus’ fate, yet one does not dwell on his losses for long. So Oedipus is definitely the ideal example for Aristotle’s definition
Hi, this is Yesica. :D
Though I concede that Oedipus’ destiny was just “tragic,” I still insist and I have to agree with Aristotle’s views that he is more of a tragic hero.
Aristotle has suggested that “The hero’s misfortunate is not wholly deserved. The punishment exceeds the crime.” I agree with his claim because the punishment that Oedipus received was too severe. For the unknowing crime he committed. Take for example the following line that was used to depict his misfortune: “And you will see a sight that would provoke his bitterest enemy to tears” (55) Here, the word choice to use the word “provoke” heightens the idea that there is no escape to this horrible pain. Also, it prompts the audience to feel an overwhelming feeling of pity and grief. In just the same way, when the messenger talks about Oedipus to the Chorus, he said, “Grief, ruin, death, and shame…all ills that have a name…” (54). This detail emphasizes the sense of Oedipus fortune lead to his doom. Even the pausing syntax helps the audience feel the heavy burden that he will have to carry for the rest of his life.
It's me again at 11:57 p.m.,huh huh!!!!
Ed Friedlander's theory about Sophocles's worldview is useful because it sheds insight on the difficult problem of why bad things happen a good person in a tragedy for no apparent reason.
Egder Dominguez
When it comes to the topic of what was one of the main causes of Oedipus’ downfall, I agree that his hubris played a significant role. As Arthur Miller stated, “his inherent unwillingness to remain passive in the face of what he conceives to be a challenge to his dignity, his image of his rightful status,” was the flaw that Oedipus had in him. His pride and dignity wouldn’t allow him to be seen as less than perfect. As the IB paper pointed out, he also was too arrogant in the search for the truth. For example, he threatens Teiresias that he will punish him with the help of his power in “You will regret it, you and your friend Creon” (22).
This is Cesar Servin 3rd
(My bad I forgot my blogger password)
I agree with Aristotle and his point of view of Oedipus as a tragic hero, but I disagree that Oedipus' destruction was his fault. I do believe Oedipus fits the first definition, in where he was of noble character shown by lines like, "Never doubt that i will help you in every way i can", or "I am moved and touched to find you suppliant here". He is not perfect and that is shown by his arrogance to not welcome truth due to his position. "Truth lives in other men but not you" he tells Teiresias when the oracle tells Oedipus he's the killer. The punishment does exceed the crime for Oedipus since he saved the city and was punished with destruction and exile. I ,however, don't agree that Oedipus brought this destruction to himself, or that it doesn't leave the reader in a state of depression. You read about a son trying to escape a terrible fate yet it occurs. He kills his father, unknowingly marries his mother, and has children with his mother. Then the story ends with the mother/wife committing suicide in the bedroom, Oedipus blinding himself by striking his eyes, and eventually being declared to be exiled. There is nothing but brutality and depression in all those scenes. There is no way you can't feel a sense of depression after reading about those scenes. Oedipus tried hard to escape his fate. He even left what he believed to be his parents when he was young to avoid his fate. He was running away from fate, but at the end we see that he wasn't able to, not because of his actions, but because fate crossed the parents' and Oedipus' paths together. Their paths were crossed even after they all wanted to avoid any contact with one another. I do agree Oedipus meets the description of Aristotle's tragic hero. Yet, i have to disagree with some of his points, and mainly disagree to what he believes as the character's fault and not fate.
Hi, this is Yesica. :D
Though I concede that Oedipus’ destiny was just “tragic,” I still insist and I have to agree with Aristotle’s views that he is more of a tragic hero.
Aristotle has suggested that “The hero’s misfortunate is not wholly deserved. The punishment exceeds the crime.” I agree with his claim because the punishment that Oedipus received was too severe for the unknowing crimes he committed. Take for example the following line that was used to depict his misfortune: “And you will see a sight that would provoke his bitterest enemy to tears” (55) Here, the word choice to use the word “provoke” heightens the idea that there is no escape to this horrible pain. Also, it prompts the audience to feel an overwhelming feeling of pity and grief. In just the same way, when the messenger talks about Oedipus to the Chorus, he said, “Grief, ruin, death, and shame…all ills that have a name…” (54). This detail emphasizes the sense of Oedipus fortune lead to his doom. Even the pausing syntax helps the audience feel the heavy burden that he will have to carry for the rest of his life. Oedipus lost his throne, parents, fortune, children and his sight. In my opinion, no man deserves such a harsh punishment.
According to Aristotle, he argues that “Though it arouses solemn emotion, tragedy does not leave its audience in a state of depression. One function of tragedy is to arouse the "unhealthy" emotions of pity and fear and through a catharsis (which comes from watching the tragic hero's terrible fate) cleanse us of those emotions.” In end of the play Oedipus the King, the author did not left us in a depressing state but rather a small hope for us to find peace. In the end, when Oedipus begs to be exiled, the author uses the line “Then, free from pain and sorrow—he may lie in peace” (62). Sophocles’ choice to end the play with this line reveals that only death can cut the chains that tie us to this dark and cold path of anguish: fate. Even the separating syntax focuses our attention that there might be some hope.
Although Ed Friedlander’s claim may seem small, it is in fact crucial in terms of today’s concern over religion. I have to agree with him, when he says that “if there are gods, they are capricious and malicious.” In Oedipus the King, his fate was set in stone, and was destined to walk on a destructive and painful path for the rest of his life. It was not his fault, but the gods’ choice to proclaim his destiny before his birth.
[Finally!!Sorry my computer has a virus >.< and I thought I pasted the whole thing.I'm tired of this computer -__- *sets it on fire* muahaha sweet revenge >:]
I agree with Ed Friedlander that "hubris" is always exposed from a character who experiences a downfall. I don't believe Oedipus' pride had anything to do with his downfall. The murder and the marriage had already occured before he was denying the truth and using his pride as cover. His "hubris" has nothing to do with his downfall, which is why i strongly disagree with the IB paper and Arthur Miller. I do agree Oedipus was prideful, he was a king, but that has nothing to do with what happened even before he gained pride. He had already killed his father before that which was part of the prophecy already fulfilled. Therefore, i do agree with Ed Friedlander that "in Sophocle's world bad things happen for no reason."
Some truly excellent arguments here. I think this time around, Egder and Yesica have created the most textually based and most comprehensive arguments. Next time, we'll see.
Post a Comment