According to Bernard Knox, Sophocles's play "presents us with a terrible affirmation of man's subordinate position in the universe, and at the same time with a heroic vision of man's victory in defeat." Is this apparent paradox resolvable? Also, you might wish to explore the ramifications of Knox's comments on Hamlet, or, for that matter, on life itself.
8 comments:
Just because I'm posting first, I want to break this quote down. So, first we have that Oedipus "presents us with a terrible affirmation of man's subordinate positing in the universe." I do agree that Oedipus does this well. He had no control of the fact that he was married to his mother and killed his father. True, he killed a man, but he did not know that it was his father. And he was unaware that Jocasta was his mother when he married her. (at first anyways, later he may have figured it out before admitting it outloud, but denial is strong.) This was prophesized, and it came true, reflecting the point of the time that man was subordinate to the gods. I don't feel that man is subordinate to fate, but I do feel that Oedipus reflects that ideal.
However, I completely disagree with the other half of the quote, which claims that the text presents "a heroic vision of man's victory in defeat." I do not see how Oedipus is victorius. His life was destroyed by the truth of what he had done, to the point where he would gouge out his eyes so that he wouldn't have to see light anymore. He was defeated, but he was not in any way victorious, not that I can see.
I completely agree with Michelle. This quote shows that Oedipus is subordinate to fate, and that all man has no control over their final destiny. The only victory I can possible see here is that Oedipus gouged out his eyes in recognition of his ill deeds. But even that is stretching it, as it seems more heroic to live with your mistakes and give your children a father.
I have trouble believing the Oedipus complex, but do believe it has some validity. Fathers, in some ways, lose their sons to their wives. Does that not present some sort of rivalry? But overall, I don't understand how Oedipus is seen in such a subconscious light. For instance, I believe the most important idea from Oedipus IS the beginning of the quote (that you cannot run from fate). The idea of Oedipus marrying his mother and killing his father is only a soap opera subplot in the bigger picture of the story. Freud's ideas made Oedipus famous, but does it really deserve so much psychlogical recognition? Possibly not.
In addressing the first portion of this quote,I mostly agree that Sophocles's play "presents us with a terrible affirmation of man's subordinate position in the universe." The play certainly demonstrates that Oedipus could not control his tragic future no matter how hard he attempted to avoid it by taking his life in another direction. I believe that Oedipus HIGHLIGHTS a case in which man is subordinate to the universe, rather than AFFIRMS it, however. While it is true that man cannot control weather and natural disasters, he can control his personal relationships, thinking, and personality. These things are all part of the universe in my opinion and can drastically alter fate. For example, how does one explain the people who have changed their lives for the better after reading The Secret? Their individual will power, not the universe, is responsible for the positive thinking that has lead them on a healthier path. Overall, man is subordinate to the universe in some instances and not in others.
Secondly, I support Kristen in reasoning that Oedipus' defeat was not exactly a victory nor heroic. Oedipus' defeat may have been a victory in the sense that he had the ability to realize the reality of his actions. Others might have denied it and simply kept on living because it is too difficult to cope with events of that great scale. Still, a GENUINE victory would be a combination of these two: realization + having the courage to patch up your life and thus, to keep on living. Gouging the eyes displayed immense shame rather than victory or heroism. Oedipus ultimately blinded himself to the opportunities he had to reconstruct his future.
Seeing as his life is destroyed, I don't really see why he even has a place in the universe to begin with. If Oedipus was never born, the story's history would not be much different. The only purpose he showed was proof that oracles are real and so are gods. He also killed the sphinx too. His victory in his defeat could be the retribution he gives himself in the end, which may win him some sympathy from the godsand grant him a better afterlife.
Random Oedipus joke:
What did the Chorus say after Oedipus gouged his eyes out?
A: "Now thats a face only a mother would love!"
so i literally laughed out loud at paul's joke...
but anyways... I agree with what everyone said about Oedipus and the quote...so let's talk about Hamlet. One could argue that the ghost represents the fate of Hamlet and that this illusion came to him to point him in the direction he was destined to go. Hamlet thought he was conciously makeing decisions in "to be or not to be" but in reality the ghost that comes to him is what is his ultimate influence and the reason he is stirred to action. This force of the universe is beyond Hamlet's control. As for the second portion of the quote which talks about "victory in defeat," I believe that this play really shows in the ending this idea of success in failure. Hamlet's life is taken away and almost all of his loved ones are killed, yet he succeeds in his mission to kill Claudius. He has lost and gained at the same time, but the real stunning quality of the ending is that Hamlet recieves a legacy by avenging his father's death. Even Fortinbras regards him as somewhat of a hero. So, although his life is taken, Hamlet still achieves his goal of killing Claudius and thus is essentially a heroic figure.
alright yeah so fate rules the lives of man. okay, and oedipus ended up ruining himself because he didn't believe that. if he and his famioly had listened to the prophecies in the first place, then he could have lived a very different life. oedipus was brought down from his throne, haha kinda literally because hes a king, in front of a huge crowd of people. this was fate's punishment because oedipus didn't listen to the prophecy.
I agree with the first part of the quote--that the play Oedipus portrays man in a subordinate position in the universe. He thought he could self-determine his fate but ended up marrying his mother and killing his father as the prophecy had said. I somewhat agree to the second part of the quote ("a heroic vision of a man's victory in defeat") because he gave into the truth when he became aware of it (and gouged out his eyes in representation) and I think that awareness of truth and "light" is what the victory in the defeat was. I don't think that this paradox is resolvable because of the complexity of human nature. Humans have been created as subordinates to God but because of the "intelligence" and high-level ability to recognize our moral conscious, we will always be able to find new knowledge about nature through experience. I don't know if I'm making any sense...and you can obviously argue that.
I'd guess I'd like to add something here. Plenty of the above comments do a fine job of addressing the first half of the quote; it seems clear to most of you that the play is about man's "subordinate" position in the universe. What seems less clear to some of you is exactly how Oedipus could possible emerge triumphant from this play. Well, first of all, he shoulders his burden, applying to himself the very punishment (exile) he had called down on the murderer of Laius. Perhaps more importantly (and to address Lauren D's insightful comment about his "shame"), Oedipus MUST be made to understand and embody the exact opposite of the hamartia (tragic flaw) that proves to be the undoing of so many tragic heroes -- namely, pride, or hubris. And what is the polar opposite of hubris? Shame! Thus, Oedipus is made to feel shame. Now, in doing so, Oedipus actually becomes "victorious in defeat," as he emerges from the play a wiser, more temperate man.
Look, for the Greeks, the gods are in a constant state of victory, right? So Oedipus stares them down, shoulders his burden, and endures unimaginable suffering. I think the key word here is "endures." That's where the victory, or triumph, is. Think back to the Hemingway Code. Also, since we're studying Joyce, think of this when you do get around to reading Ulysses - unlike Homer's hero Odysseus (who kills dozens of would-be suitors to his faithful wife Penelope), Joyce's hero Leopold Bloom does not lash out in violence when he is made a cuckold by his rival Blazes Boylan, but rather embraces a philosophy of passive acceptance, endurance, even perhaps forgiveness as he seeks to reconcile with his wife Molly. Joyce, like Sophocles and Shakespeare so many years before him, is recalibrating and rethinking what exactly it means to be a hero.
Post a Comment