Author Archives: Syndicated User

The sight of blindness

Posted on by

From reading some of the other blogs I wonder if I was the only one who had this reading as their first exposure to Oedipus in any light. Sure, I had heard the name Oedipus but had no other context surrounding this book. I (happily) found this to be an easy read after Plato, and was grateful for the guidance from Greek prophecies that seem to add a simplicity to these books.

It is always strange and interesting to see how the prophecies are fulfilled, and of how for Oedipus the road to hell was paved with good intentions. In an attempt to save the lives and honor of the people he believed to be his parents, he ends up doing the opposite and causing more pain for himself and others. There are constant references to how Oedipus is a man destined to suffer, similar to Odysseus and of how his name was said to foretell a future of pain and hardship. Oedipus was not the only one who tried to avoid his fate (and pain), Jocasta had tried to avoid the entire situation by sending him away to be killed soon after birth, only for someone to take pity on him as a child and spare him. Even the messenger tries to soothe Oedipus’ qualms by informing him of his untrue, perceived birthright.  Is this then fate? Is fate what happens even when a person has good intentions and induces their own suffering to avoid other’s? For me, Odysseus had done things that brought on his fate while Oedipus had been trying to avoid harming others and is much less selfish. It seems that through everyone’s good intentions they all suffer as a consequence.

Another aspect that stuck out was the use of sight and irony throughout the book. Oedipus declares that the people need not fear because they have him to fight for them, while he was (unknowingly) the cause of all of their troubles. Looking back, it is the instant in which Oedipus promises to find the murderer that he also begins a journey to discover who his parents were. He makes repeated comments of how his greatest wish is to look his parents in the eye, something he has been doing for a long time without knowing. With this in mind, his self blinding seems incredibly ironic because he was already blind to the truth of his history. It almost seems as if he can’t bare the burden of fully seeing reality, and that he needs to blind in at least one form to continue living.

Kailer

 

Posted in Uncategorized

Oedipus

Posted on by

I was glad to see another short text on our reading list. For one reason or another I found myself gravitating to this book more than most we have read. I thought the story itself was very interesting and provided for unusual plot twists. The idea of incest is usually a very touchy subject, not often tackled in what I have had the chance to read. This brought the idea fully forward, showing just how undesired the practice was at the time. Oedipus destroys his own vision because of the horror and regret he feels regarding his actions.

I found Oedipus’ response to the incident very revealing. Oedipus consistently places himself before the gods in his ability to accomplish things. He states that he is responsible for being a great leader, not because of divine intervention. He receives the revelation regarding events to come (that being, the killing of his father and marrying of his mother), and still continues to disregard the abilities of the gods. He believes that he, as a human, is able to combat this by relocating and taking full precaution. His fate eventually is fulfilled however, leaving one to believe that he would finally subdue to the will of the gods; He doesn’t do this. Oedipus places blame fully upon himself. He cries and mourns his actions, constantly calling himself out for what has occurred in his life. He does not curse the gods, he chooses to destroy his eyes and leave the world he knows, seeking isolation in the mountains.

The reaction from Oedipus leads me to believe that he is not a monster in any sense. He is nothing more than a victim, placed into a position he did not deserve. He was shown throughout the text to be a fantastic ruler. He was loved by his citizens, he cared for them all, he became “tyrant” through his many actions. Despite all of the good he has done, he is still sentenced to a horrific fate. He is so graceful in his acceptance of the fate, he blames no one other than himself. This is a truly selfless act, one which not many characters throughout our readings would have treated equally. Take Odysseus for example; he would have likely cursed one of the many gods for putting him into the situation. He would not have an equally humble response as Oedipus had.

I am actually looking forward to reading the essay prompts relating to Oedipus, this is my favorite text so far and I can’t wait to dissect it further in class.


A combination of “Doomed from the start” and “Ignorance is bliss”

Posted on by

Oedipus Rex… was quite the tragedy.  Extraordinarily depressing, next to the blank word document that was my Plato Essay. Having read Antigone, I knew some of the background to Oedipus Rex, but reading the actual tragedy made me wonder… what do you do when the universe has already condemned you?

Oedipus was basically doomed from the start.   The prophet’s prophecy… basically led to Oedipus running from his fate for his entire lie.  An unenviable fate indeed, but one as he found out the hard way, he could not escape.  Of course, this brings up the question of whether his actions created his fate, or whether fate was predetermined for Oedipus.  To my opinion, it’s seems to vary from situation to situation within the text.  Oedipus killing his father… SEEMED like an accident.  It was Laius who struck out against Oedipus who chanced upon running into the king, but if Oedipus hadn’t run away in the first place, he might have never met Laius.  To me though, it seems that the gods and fate are more to blame than Oedipus’s actions.  If he hadn’t known and everything the prophecy predicted happened to him, then the answer would have been obvious, but Sophocles has written the play in such a way that in a sense, Oedipus’s attempt to know his destiny, led to his downfall.

Ignorance and whether ignorance is bliss is also a key factor in the play.  Oedipus, despite his mother/wife Jocasta’s warnings and pleadings, was determined to seek out the shepherd.  This eventually led to her killing herself, which can be seen as Oedipus driving his mother to death, though I’m more inclined to see Jocasta as being primarily responsible.  If Oedipus just ignored his urge to find out the truth of his heritage… that could have changed things greatly, but then again, given the strange nature of fate within the text, it may not have changed anything.  However, to my eyes, Oedipus’s confronting of the truth, eventually led to his downfall of blinding himself.  So in a sense, Sophocles’s Oedipus Rex warns us that the truth, may cause more harm than good and it also make s a commentary on the nature of fate and destiny.

Which came first: the chicken or the egg?

Posted on by

The chicken-and-egg question is by no means a new question. It’s a question that can go both ways and nobody knows which really came first into existence. In the case of Oedipus Rex, it is arguable both ways whether he controlled his own fate or whether fate controlled his life.

 

When Oedipus was born, a prophecy was made that stated he was destined to kill his father and marry his mother. In fear of this prophecy, he was left to die as an infant with his ankles bound on the orders of his parents. Oedipus manages to come out alive anyway because the servant who was ordered to leave him to die felt pity on him and gave him away. Fast forward into the future and during a roadside brawl, he kills his biological father Laius and marries his mother Jocasta. Was the prophecy really fulfilled or did fate happen because it was shaped by the actions of Oedipus and his parents? This is the really interesting question. I find that people in literature who often try so hard to avoid a prophecy from coming true often end up making the prophecy come true. For instance, in Harry Potter, Voldemort hears a prophecy that a boy born at the end of July with parents who defied him three times would end up defeating him. He gets understandably worried and goes to try and murder Harry as a baby. Fast forward to the seventh book and Voldemort does get defeated by Harry. But what if Voldemort didn’t pay any attention to the prophecy? Then Harry would have no reason to come after him and he might’ve achieved his goal of immortality! Another example would be Macbeth, who because of a prophecy, decides to murder King Duncan (I think that’s the king’s name, but it’s been two years so I could be wrong). These people all self-fulfill these prophecies; either through trying to avoid the prophecies, or by directly taking action to make the prophecies come true. Laius and Jocasta tried so hard to prevent Oedipus from growing up so he couldn’t kill his father and marry his mother as the prophecy predicted. This is exactly what happens, however. If Laius and Jocasta had simply ignored the prophecy, I doubt Oedipus would ever have thought of killing Laius or married Jocasta.

It’s an interesting topic; this talk about whether we control fate or whether fate controls us. Most people, when asked, will say that they believe we, as humans, control fate. Yet, when people are told that something will happen, they also have a tendency to believe it. It’s rather contradictory.

 

Another noteworthy question to ask is: Is Oedipus a monster? Taken out of context, Oedipus is someone who kills his father and marries his mother. Monstrous? Yes. But when you actually read the book, it’s hard to blame Oedipus. He didn’t know who his real biological parents were. His parents even tried to kill him! Also, even though his crimes are certainly monstrous, he is by no means unloving towards his family. He shows deep concern for his children and regrets the fact that he has to leave them. He elicits pity from the audience and readers alike. I personally found “Oedipus Rex” an entertaining read and I was fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to read this play in my English 12 class.

           


Oedipus Rex: Choice or Destiny… Conveniently bundled with Incest

Posted on by

So after reading a couple tragedies I’ve come to the conclusion that majority of the characters and their spouses have to die and or mutilate themselves in the worst way possible. Brutus runs onto his own sword, his wife swallows hot coals and chokes to death. Macbeth is decapitated, his wife loses her mind and flings herself from a tower. Oedipus stabs himself in both eyes with clothing pins and his wife hangs herself from a noose. Quite a spectacular pattern. Shakespeare must of felt inspired by Oedipus’ conclusion

Unfortunately I didn’t have the good fortune to read this in secondary school, but of course I heard the most controversial part. *Spoilers* Oedipus bangs his own mom and bears children of incest. Now I think this is one of these instances- like Medea, that although incest is a major part of the plays plot, it is not the major theme of Oedipus. However, I’m sure it made for a good hook in the Athens theatre district. “He does what?! Oh I have to see this.”

All jokes aside the obvious themes in Oedipus are both Fate and Tyranny. Now what confuses me the most is whether or not Oedipus is to blame for his misfortune or if it was simply bound to be. When the play begins Oedipus has already done both heinous deeds without his own knowledge. He has already ascended to the King of Thebes, and has raised two daughters born from his mother’s womb. Are they his sisters or daughters…? This hindsight perspective doesn’t give the reader the impression that he had much choice. We don’t get to see him conflict over any of these decisions. All we can do is wait in suspense, waiting for a verdict. But was the prophecy fulfilled?

The Oracle predicted three things. Oedipus would murder his own father, sleep with his mother, and eventually murder her. Now to be fair, the Oracle did predict it least two of these occurrences, but did he really murder his own mother? Oedipus may of drove his mother into an emotional state but she did die by her own hand, not his. This could be an example of how his own choices can be applicable to his fate.  Jocasta pleads with Oedipus to end his search for truth. Both she, Tiresias and The Shepard know it can do him no good and will lead to ruin. If he had “chosen” to abide to her wishes perhaps the Oracle’s final prediction could have been avoided. But you can’t blame the guy. If anyone had any sort of reason to question whether their spouse was related to them, I’m sure they wouldn’t just shrug off the notion.

One last thing, Is Oedipus really to blame for his father’s death? His dad did cut him off while he was driving. Things escalated from there, but Laius was the instigator and he attacked Oedipus first. And although it’s taboo in Ancient Greece to murder your father it’s a bit of a double standard. No one talks down Laius for attempting to murder his own child… Well, maybe it was actually Jocasta, but I’m sure he still had some say in it.

Kyle


Republic

Posted on by

Reading Republic, by Plato, was interesting. The text opens up with a debate on what is justice, which is branched out from Socrates and Cephalus discussing old age. The first chapter took a while to get through; however, as I read on the reading became easier. The form the text is constructed is an interesting take, as Plato uses dialogue to form his arguments to persuade people to see what he believes to be justice. Through the form of discussion and logical reasoning, Plato is able to swiftly tackle any counter arguments and a chorus of others who, after logic reasoning and deduction, come to the same conclusion as Plato and agree with him.
The ideal kalipolis is soon introduced and we learn what Plato believes to be the best form of government. The kalipolis he creates is interesting in itself. The people will have limited education, selected by the ruling class who have been tested for the position, and will work for the greater good of the community, which will reward them in happiness. What Plato finds as happiness is very interesting. In his ideal city people will be happy just serving their community with the best of their abilities tested into one certain lifestyle. The hierarchy system is also what I thought to be interesting. Plato prides his ideal city to be harmonious, which to function every citizen would have to give up any sense of individual and have to step back to look at the greater picture. He believes there will be happiness in his city with no rifts between the classes. His justification is that if those were educated the way he believes should be. People would be okay as they belong to the state and every person is necessary and therefore okay with the hierarchy of people. His reasoning is logical and idealistic in the thought that a perfect city is to be able to function by being one big machine looking after each other, rather than people who share a space and tend to their own carnal desires. I liked seeing how his city was structured as well as other details of education and how it all played out in the larger picture. I’m not sure that I agree it is the best city, but I do see how he can shed a light on how democracy is flawed.
This book reminded me of many dystopian novels and short stories I have enjoyed. The idea of community, what is private and public, was a theme that caught me as well as choice. By limiting education and selecting certain stories to be portrayed in one light is something we find to be limiting rather than liberating. It is cool to be able to contrast Plato’s perfect city and today’s global society, especially how it would work today. In this way it reminded me of Kurt Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron were the government controls everything making sure everything is equal, just as Plato’s guardians make sure there is no strife in the community.


The Republic 2

Posted on by

As Plato continues in his search for justice and a perfect just society, it becomes increasingly clear that, though the text is set up as a series of revealing points and counterpoints, in the end, it represents a very monocular and narrow minded viewpoint, which is Plato’s viewpoint. As one of his fellow philosophers points out, Plato is a master of words and a skilled debater. He spins his opponents round in circles and by the time he’s done he’s made his opponents contradict themselves in some way and claims victory for himself. By pointing out the fact that his opponent is wrong, he rationalizes that he must be right. Plato’s inability to take into account the viewpoints of others, in my opinion, is the reason his arguments aren’t widely accepted. Furthermore it’s the reason he can’t see the inherent flaws in his own thought experiment.

The Allegory of the cave is an instant in which plato follows his train of thought so far that he can’t see anything but his own ideas. Plato establishes, at one point in the book, that one thing cannot perform contradictory actions at the same time and in the same way. He later uses this logic to describe the idea that something cannot be both knowledge and ignorance at the same time. Rather, he described this state of flux between knowledge and ignorance as “opinion”. In the allegory of the cave, the halfway point between the truth (the sun) and the ignorance (the shadows), is the puppeteers and their instruments. The puppeteers used various artifacts and objects to create a false sense of reality for the observers in the cave.  The truth, in Plato’s OPINION, can only be reached if someone of knowledge and rationality pulls you out. Plato’s monocular vision of reality comes into play at this point because he believes he’s somehow saving people from the shackles of ignorance and showing them reality. He fails to take into account the idea that reality is not some objective “thing”. Many would say reality isn’t “out there” it’s not something that is existing somewhere that can be found. Rather and argument can be made that reality is just a shared subjective construct of our surroundings and our senses. The people who see images on the wall in the cave live in their own reality which is a construct of what they see and hear. They believe the shadows on the wall are living things because they see them and they can hear them. They create a completely rational idea of what life is given their context. Their idea of life is no more false than Plato’s. They both reached conclusions on what reality is, based on their rational connections between what they were surrounded by, and who’s to say Plato won’t be dragged reluctantly from his reality and shown the “real” reality. Plato’s ideas, just like all others, are flickering shadows on the wall, and he’s just another puppeteer floating between knowledge and ignorance.

Plato Continued

Posted on by

Continuing to read Plato, was an interesting experience.  For one, his arguments are very well-founded and hard to refute.  So on some occasions I agreed with him and when I firmly disagreed with him, I couldn’t really argue with his logic.

There are a number of ideas and suggestions that Plato makes that I firmly agree with.  The idea of women ruling with men being one of them.  It may be one of the more redeeming qualities of Plato that he sees no difference between men and women.  However, the concept which I find myself most intrigued by is the allegory in the cave, in which humans are the ones continuously grasping at the shadows to try and seek the truth, when they can’t.  I wouldn’t say Plato has found the truth in his representation of the perfect kalliopis, but I have to say that his allegory of a cave is a very accurate representation of how we are striving to identify the shadows which seem to change and flicker.

My thoughts on Plato’s suggestions of a bad city state were mixed.  They were all… bad, but historical examples made me question Plato’s argument.  If one looks at the Roman Empire/Republic… there is a parallel to Plato’s argument in there.  There was a republic, that descended into a tyranny.  Yet, if one looks again at the Roman empire, some of the most successful inventions were during the Tyranny.  So… what Plato suggested is that the Roman Empire was a bad city-state… in a sense, it was, but in a sense it wasn’t since it did last for such a long period of time.  Still, I had to admire how Plato described the decay of the city-states as they were later proven by historical examples.

As for the philosopher kings, the auxiliaries and their training?  Well… In theory, they seemed to make sense.  In all practicality… humans don’t obey logic and have desires.  Plato knows that and he tries to address that ‘problem’ with censorship, conditioning and creating a societal role that would make it difficult, for the desires.  However, while I cannot say he’s wrong, I think that Plato is only trying to at the most, set aside the problem of human desire and not addressing the source.  All his limits, censorship and role-molding that he forces upon the philosopher kings would work… but without any sort of true passion for their jobs, the philospher kings would be in effect, screwed because their job is rather thankless.

Still, Plato’s attempt to grasp at the truth of a perfect government, is an attempt and a good attempt at trying to define the shadow of perfect government.

Signed,

Vincent Yam

 

 

Plato’s Republic (2/2)

Posted on by

            I feel like Plato just led me on a very extensive tour of his ouwn paradise. Although I don’t think I’ll be looking for a place there any time soon, he was a fascinating guide and I’m glad I didn’t miss out on the tour. …Clearly i didn’t quite pick up Plato’s way with words through reading this book. Ah well.

           I found book VIII particularly interesting, in how Socrates describes the way the perfect state may transform to a timarchy, an oligarchy, a democracy, and finally a tyranny. Wealth, he claims, plays a major role in this decent from perfection, and has an inverse relationship with virtue. When reading this I found myself reminded of when I was a child, and how I naïvely thought that all problems would be solved if there was no such thing as money. It seemed so logical at the time, everyone would be able to have whatever they wanted. Not that I’m comparing Plato to a child, I just feel as though it must be something that’s crossed everyone’s mind at one point or another. Both in a naïve sense in youth and again in a more analytical and reflective way as a young adult. His opinion on that matter is probably shared by many others, and i wonder what his thoughts on modern capitalism would be. 

            This may seem insignificant, but I found it interesting that Plato believed dreams revealed hidden desires. Socrates says “Our dreams make it clear that there is a dangerous, wild, and lawless form of desire in everyone” on page 242. Although I’m not sure if it’s our dreams that reveal this, I do agree that everyone has a side to them that’s kept hidden, and possibly not ever revealed. What I mean is, put under the right circumstances, I think anyone could be “evil” or monstrous as I suppose I should say. I disagree with him in his reaction to the existence of this ‘dark side’ of human nature, however.

            I really enjoyed reading the allegory of the cave, although I’m still a little bit unsure of my understanding of ‘forms’. I’m very much looking forward to hearing what Jill Fellows has to say about it in the lecture, as I’m sure there are parts that went straight over my head, despite my efforts. I have to say, I hadn’t actually heard of the allegory of the cave before this year, except for a sign on my old principal’s door that said ‘Plato’s Cave’. Glad to finally understand what that was all about.


The Republic

Posted on by

The worst read so far in arts one has finally come to an end. I have never had to concentrate so hard on a book. The dialogue was as repetitive as I could fathom as character after character succumbed to Socrates’ “perfect” logic. Each character appeared to be intelligent and individualistic, but eventually, they all turned into yes man. The book reached a point of sending the idea of how the phrase “yes, you care correct” could be replicated in as many ways as possible. If the book succeeded in one thing, it would have to be that. However, what t did not succeed in doing is convincing me of the Utopia of what The Republic could be. Plato appears to rule out very important parts of humanity in creating this government. He clearly fails to present an individuals right to choose. This ignores the basis of what one is best at doing. It goes outside of what someone’s highest skill is, what they are most efficient at doing. Plato removes this possibility from the individual leaving them with nothing but a Brave New World rendition in which class is dictated systematically, disregarding what the individual may hope to do, simply replacing it by what the individual is made to do.

I also have a problem with philosophers being the leaders and deciders of society. This is not because I have any problem with philosophy (other than understanding these far-reaching ideas), it is that I do not like Plato dictating this. This is due to that fact that Plato is a philosopher himself. He is completely biased in his ordering and structuring of how he wants society to be arranged. By conveniently placing himself as top dog, the lawmaker and ruler, I do not trust him. I do not believe he is seeking out any sort of revolutionary idea. What would have made me think on a more philosophical level would be Plato arguing for the most intelligent to have the least say in government. This sounds ridiculous perhaps, but knowing Plato, he would have been able to talk his zombie yes-men into believing just about anything.

It’s not that I don’t like Plato, it’s that he is arrogance hidden as naivety. He attempts to make himself sound less intelligent and more of a seeker of knowledge by throwing rhetorical question after rhetorical question at the reader/listener. In reality, Plato has a clear vision of what he believes things should be like. Not only this, but he also believes that things are only to be viewed in a certain way, and he of course, has found this singular way of viewing.