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"
17 comments:
Aristotle's argument of Oedipus the King as the perfect representation of a 'tragic hero' is useful because it really sheds light on the problem of what really makes a hero in a story "tragic." In Aristotle's third point of what makes a hero tragic, he states "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. Often the character's hamartia involves hubris." Oedipus' downfall was the result of his choice to kill Laius years before when they met. When Oedipus talks about his journey to Thebes, he says "the groom--who was leading the horses by the reins--forced me off the road. The man in the chariot ordered him to do so. As the man lurched toward me I struck him. I was angry. The old man saw this and hit me hard with his scepter. I hit him back! Oh I hit him back! I knocked him out of the chariot. He rolled to the ground. I beat him to death. I killed them all!" [pg. 37-38] Oedipus killed Laius and his men [hamartia] because of his anger/arrogance [hubris]. Oedipus did not have to kill Laius and his men but he did so out his own free choice, not because of fate. Since Oedipus did kill his father out of his own free will, Oedipus unknowingly chooses to fulfill his prophecy ultimately causing his own downfall; therefore Oedipus is the perfect representation of Aristotle's definition of and defines a 'tragic hero.'
I disagree with niniiker's point that oedipus killed his father out of his own free will. Yes Oedipus killed his father out of anger, but if Oedipus would have known that it was his father he was killing, he would have never done it. On pgs. 36-39, Oedipus is explaining to Jocasta what he He tells Jocasta on pg 37 that "He said that I would bed my own mother, that I would breed children from that womb, and that the world would turn away in horror. He said that I would kill my own father. I listened. And I fled." I disagree that Oedipus fits Aristole's third point becasue Oedipus shouldnt be blamed for his downfall. His downfall was that he fulfilled the prophecy. If it was up to Oedipus, he wouldnt have fulfilled it; that is why he fled Corinth. He didnt want to kill his father and bed his mother. When he killed Laius (his father) I wouldnt necessarily say that was his "free will" because if he knew that Laius was his real father, he wouldnt have killed him. As far niniiker's point about "Oedipus killed Laius and his men [hamartia] because of his anger/arrogance [hubris]", I agree that his downfall was killing his father, but a hubris is a sort of arrogance. Oedipus didnt display arrogance. Arrogance is a offensive display of superiority or self-importance; overbearing pride (www.dictionary.com). Oedipus wasnt being arrogant. He was mad. So, in conclusion, I Aristole's third point is not true for Oedipus.
I agree with alexandriaprude. In order for Oedipus to be a tragic hero, he has to meet all of the requirements of a tragic hero, and he does not. Yes, it is true that Oedipus is noble, of high status, not perfect,etc.; however, the events that occurred were inevitable. Since the prophecy was going to be fulfilled regardless of how hard Oedipus tried, it wasn't his fault that he killed his father. Yes, killing is bad, and he shouldn't have done it, but the people who he called mother and father should've told him, and then he wouldn't have been so naive when it came down to whether or not he killed Lauis.
Hii! This is Tiffany.
I do agree with most of Aristole's reasons. But, I have to agree with Nina, Joanna and Alex about number three, how it is the not the character’s own fault for its own downfall, which in this case based on Oedipus he does not know what was going on with his life. He found out the hard way that he killed his father and married his own mother. Another one that I disagree with is number one that the tragic hero noble stature and has greatness, because anyone can be a tragic hero, and should not be categorized. (Agreeing to Joanna’s statement) Basically, the own faults was his mother/wife. She knew once Oedipus started questioning where he was from, etc. Not only was it his own mother/wife's fault but his foster parents should have told him that he was found and raised by them, not actually his real birth parents. But, also Oedipus has his own fault that he should have not killed anyone if he knew his fortune all ready and at the same time he has his own reason at the time.
Hola this is laurel...... I somewhat agree with alexandriaprude's argument, but I don't know about the whole free-will statement. I took free will as nobody forces you to do it. Nobody forced Oedipus to kill Laius, he did it on his own. Oedipus is a tragic hero. Oedipus fits majority of Aristotle's definitions, but one didn't. Number 6 doesn't fit Oedipus. I felt horrible at the end because I sympathized with Oedipus and I didn't want him to just go into exile. So, I was saddened by his and the god's choice of going through with that decision. Oedipus fits number 1 because he had higher power (he was a king) and was noble and virtuous (he helped the citizens, and they looked up to him). He also fits number 2. He wasn't perfect (he killed a man before he became king). And number 3: it was his free will that led him down the slope (he left home so he wouldn't kill his father and sleep with his mother). And last, but not least, number 4 fits Oedipus perfectly. In my opinion, Oedipus didn't deserve his punishment at all. I didn't see what he did to deserve such misfortune.
Aristotle's point on what a perfect "tragic hero" has almost perfectly describes Oedipus. The perfect "tragic hero" has to be of high status. Oedipus is the both the biological and the adopted son of kings. However, the only one that may be debatable is Aristotle's third point. When Oedipus killed King Laius, could it be part of his fate or did he choose to kill him?
Oedipus was leaving the kingdom and the man that he believed to be his father and ran into King Laius. However, he didn't know that the king was his father let alone a king. He killed the travelers because he felt superior. The feeling of superiority is a character flaw. Oedipus walked right into his fate with choosing to kill. In seeing how hard Oedipus tries to get away from fulfilling the prophecy, it is obvious that if he knew that the man he killed was his father he would have made the choice to not to kill king Laius. So he choose to fulfill the prophecy. With point three out question, Oedipus is the perfect example of Aristotle's argument for a "tragic hero."
Although I agree with Aristotle up to a point, I cannot accept his overall conclusion that Oedipus is a tragic hero. I agree with almost everyone on the blog that Aristotle's point number three does not apply to Oedipus or any other character for that matter. Aristotle states that it is the characters bad judgment that leads to their downfall. But this isn't true, not in all cases is this true. I disagree with Nina, that it was Oedipus's fault for his downfall. The killing of Laius was not his fault, he was put into a situation that caused him to react in that manner, as any other human being would. Also I don't agree with Nina's argument of Arrogance, I don't think he is arrogant at all, since we all have ready the story, I think he was hopeless than anything. Arrogance simply doesn't apply to this situation, its more of a random moment, I mean if you are scared and in danger of your safety who wouldn't fight? I disagree with both Aristotle and Nina, because Oedipus was born into the world with this situation, he didn't make it. His life was similar to a ticking pipe bomb, just waiting to explode. His problems weren't started by his so called "bad judgment" but simply by life's fate. I also disagree with Aristotle in his point 1 and 2. They both state that you need to be of a "higher greatness" or be of "elite-ness in society" to qualify as a tragic hero. But the thing is that, strip away the title of king as Oedipus and make him a regular person, it would be the same situation. Anyone can be a tragic hero, just not with Aristotle's qualifications of a tragic hero.
In discussion of Oedipus, one controversial issue has been rather his downfall was his own fault resulting in free choice. I believe that Aristole's Poetics fully describe who Oedipus is as a character. I believe that his downfall is the result of free-choice rather than fate because if you know that your prophecy is to kill your father and bed your mother why would kill any man you cross in your paths. Oedipus had heard rumors that his "parents" weren't his actual biological parents while he was still in Corinth...meaning that although he tried to escape his fate by fleeing he should have taken certain cautions in his life.
I do agree that he partially is seen as a tragic hero, since he meets most of the criteria of a hero. I agree with one and two and as for three I somewhat disagree with the statement. Through out the either play we know that Oedipus is fated to be a king no matter where he goes, he ends up, or would have end up being a king. Then why can’t we accept the fact that he was fated to “kill his father and bed his mother.” Oedipus thought he ran away from the prophecy he had no idea the man on the rode was his father. Back then it would be consider sissy if you did not fight back. It was merely self defense. He truly portrayed as a good man in the play because he was determined to help the city. Even when he talks I feel that there isn’t a pompous vibe coming out of the script. Oedipus talks as if everyone is his children and he is determined to save them. In the end we do sympathize for him because fate kicks him in the butt. It’s also very sad that Oedipus was in complete denial of the truth. Every time he would have found a flaw in the truth he would have take it as someone trying to harm him. In the end I see it as fate, no matter how much everyone tries to escape it; fate will find a way to creep up on you and Bam, K.O!
"You have epic failed," says Fate.
Jamie
Alexandriaprude has suggested that Oedipus would have never murdered his father if he had known the truth about his real origins. However, she over looks the fact that taking a life is against any morals or ethics. In the book “Oedipus the King” Oedipus, acknowledges his fault in taking a life, this does not make him any less of a sympathetic character, but a wave of sympathy passes through the audience because he has learned from his faults and has accepted his destiny. Aristotle also writes that a tragic hero is one that “The fall is not pure loss. There is some increase of awareness, some gain in self knowledge, some discovery on the part of the tragic hero.” I fully agree that Oedipus fully fits this criteria, he shows a genuine understanding of his wrong doing towards the end of his journey for discovery. Since Oedipus was able to learn from his mistakes he shows the audience not only how far he has fallen but that because he had free will he became the leading hand in his own destiny and downfall. ON page 57 he says “I have condemned myself to this my fate” following on page 59 he states “Yes, I am humbled now.” These are all lines proving how far he has had to travel not only to search for the truth, but to serve a certain kind of justice that only he can control. I also agree to a certain extent with Aristotle that “The heros’ misfortune is not wholly deserved. The punishment exceeds the crime.” While what occurred to Oedipus was horrific because not only had he lost his eye sight he self inflicted his wounds. That makes the scenario, far worse than any punishment that the Gods could have had in store for him; he sort of beat them to the punch. While the misfortune may have never happened without the fate written for him by the Gods, Oedipus made his choice out his free will how everything happened. Ultimately showing the audiences feel very sympathetic because a hero is someone you can depend on, and while Oedipus was in fact a murderer he payed for his lack of justice and suffered a fate that was treacherous. He is one of the most tragic heroes in any play written by Sophocles and a truly a literary flawed, but tragic hero.
Erika
Spencer Harstead:
Aristotle has suggested that Oedipus is a tragic hero. After reading his support, I completely agree. Every description of a tragic hero matches Oedipus pretty well. Therefore, I have to disagree with those that thought his argument was not complete.
In his first description of a tragic hero, Aristotle describes someone who is of high status. Obviously, Oedipus is at a pinnacle of power. He is a king. “Oedipus, great king of Thebes!” (Page 9)
In the second description, a tragic hero is someone who is not perfect and who normal people can relate to. When Oedipus is accused of murdering Laius, we see that even though he is a king, he has the common people emotion of fear. His fear is of guilt. In the end, he could not accept that he is guilty of the murder. “I have condemned myself to this fate” (Page 57). This guilt is also very relatable for average people.
As stated in the third description, Oedipus’s downfall was partially his own fault. It was thanks to an error of judgment that Oedipus killed a man. He did not know that the man he killed was his father; otherwise he would not have done it.
I agree with most of aristotles argument of Oedipus the king being a representation of a tragic hero to some extent.Although he was a noble,of high status, he could not really do anything to prevent the events in the prophecy. Therefore i disagree with Nina that he killed his father out of free will. A prophecy is a prophecy and it is going to be fullfilled one way or another either if its intentional or accidental. So yea, disagree with reason number 3 that it was Oedipus's own downfall because in reality what could he do to prevent it? Yes he could of stayed without killing anyone and didnt have to leave but the irony in the entire play is placed so well in all the right parts that i can't blame Oedipus and therefore look at him in a sympathetic way.
Hi, this is Cristina Pérez. . .
Aristotle's argument that the downfall of the hero is due to his mistakes is not acceptable for Oedipus the King. Oedipus does not know what is going on in his life.
A 'tragic hero' according to Aristotle is aware of himself and his history, therefore Oedipus does not fit in the 'tragic hero' category because he is bind of the prophecy. I agree with Alexandria that Oedipus does not fit in the 'tragic hero' category because he does not have the characteristis of it. Oedipus can be humble and a savior, but he is not aware of his past. That little flaw of not knowing his past kicks him out of the 'tragic hero' category.
In their work, “Poetics”, Aristotle hailed the idea that Oedipus in “Oedipus the king” was an example of a tragic hero. I agree with Aristotle that Oedipus was a tragic hero because the definition of a tragic hero states that “The tragic hero is a character of noble stature and has greatness”. Oedipus is a character with greatness; he is the king. “Poetics” also states that “the tragic hero’s downfall, therefore, is partially her/his own fault, the result of free choice”. In the story Oedipus got mad and went for a walk after he found out about the prophecy, “The old man saw this and hit me hard with his scepter… I beat him to death,”(37-38). The old man was Laius, his father, and he killed him by choice; he could have just left. Choosing to kill him set the preoccupy in motion which ultimately lead to his downfall.
This is Ted Nowak.
Aristotle has suggested several points that he believes to be representative of the "perfect tragic hero." While some of his points describe Oedipus dead on, there are some that do not.
First and foremost, I do not think that Oedipus made a flawed choice that resulted in his tragic ending (point 3). He killed his father...I refuse to believe that this was a choice (even though it very well looked like it). The reason is because it was prophecy that it would happen. If Oedipus did not kill Laius there, he would have done so elsewhere because he had to fulfill fate. I agree with 'alexandriaprude' in that Oedipus would not have acted this way if he had known it was his father. We can't blame Oedipus for what happened. It's not his fault he can't avoid FATE...seriously though WHO CAN?
I also agree with Laurel about Aristotle's point #6. I also felt horrible at the end of the play. The play makes you feel like you don't have free will and you just have to accept whatever fate is thrust upon you. This is especially horrible when your fate is horrible.
3.
The root cause for Oedipus' downfall was because of the killing he did to Laius. Oedipus didn't have to kill his father nor marry anyone when he knew that he was going to kill his father and marry his mother. " As the man lurched toward me i stuck him. I was angry" (Pg 37). All kings have a since of arrogance see, but they have to have some sort of blockage between themselves and civilians because they, in reality, aren't on the same class. Oedipus was at no way excluded from that. "My children, I did not want to hear your desires from messengers. Therefore I have come in person to hear you speak- I, Oedipus your king" (Pg 9).
4. Oedipus didn't deserve part of his punishment because he didn't know who Laius or Jocasta was.
PS I am sure if we had to do 3-6
Some strong arguments here. And some real sympathy for Oedipus, which is nice to see. You have empathy. That's good.
Especially strongly argued was Erika's argument. Well done and extra credit.
Post a Comment