Oedipus And Fate Essay, Research Paper

To what extent is Oedipus responsible for his ain destiny? Before we approach this complex inquiry inductively, we are at foremost obliged to contemplate what definitions and premises are being made. This essay, possibly more so than others, requires a more extended expression at this facet of the inquiry, because of the sheer assortment of possible responses. However, I now have reduced them to three possibilities. First, we could do the premise that possibly as fate controls all destinies, so Oedipus & # 8217 ; character was created long before he was conceived. On the other manus, we could besides state that possibly Oedipus & # 8217 ; hideous destiny came approximately because of his character and destiny. The concluding possibility is that everything is inevitable & # 8211 ; therefore no 1 of all time has had any say in their ain destiny, allow entirely Oedipus. In this essay I would wish to discourse these three thoughts, and possibly pull a decision at the terminal on which I feel to be the most valid. The first solution to this inquiry, as I said earlier, is the thought that destiny makes character. As destiny purportedly in the Grecian mentality maps out all events before they occur, we can today presume with this logic that possibly the constituents that & # 8220 ; built & # 8221 ; Oedipus & # 8217 ; character were caused by destiny. We know today that character is determined by biological factors and experience. These biological factors would hold been determined by how good he was fed, how good he developed, his cistrons etcetera. The experience would hold besides been determined by the pre-destined maestro program of Fate. Thus it is possible to reason that Oedipus, as constituents of his character and head, was wholly shaped by destiny and hence can non be held responsible for what he has done, as he has no control over his actions. But the premises that these statements are based on are basically flawed. In my sentiment, destiny does non be. Yet, as this is a personal pick correspondent to spiritual belief in the sense that there can be no unequivocal statement for or against, we can non rationally conclude resolutely either manner. Yet if would be interesting to observe that as this drama is constructed along the lines of Aristotle & # 8217 ; s theory of calamity, the manner in which the drama is constructed would seek to convey the sentiment that destiny was the paramount factor and therefore could be a valid footing for the statement merely outlined. But if we were to look at the drama and construe it harmonizing to our ain value opinion system, so we could merely as easy reject this premiss. It all depends on how we would wish to near the drama. And as there is no unequivocal, positive manner of making this, neither manner can be said to be & # 8220 ; right & # 8221 ; or & # 8220 ; incorrect & # 8221 ; . The following solution that I outlined to this job was the thought that it could be a merger of both destiny and character. At first this would look to be a complete paradox, but if we extrapolate upon these thoughts it should go clear. After all, how can anyone & # 8217 ; s character have any effect if fate is at work? During Oedipus we see many illustrations of how this can be resolved. When Oedipus ( unbeknown to him ) meets his male parent on the route, he

could have decided to walk away and not react. However he decided to react aggressively, and thus kills his father. But theoretically, if his character had been different, fate could have returned later and tested him in different ways, perhaps then engaging his good-natured side. When Oedipus meets the sphinx, he could have turned away, but instead his character dictates that he should be bold and face her. Thus he becomes King, and sets him on his path to incest. However, if he had acted differently, surely fate being fate, it would have “thought” of another way to trap him. In this logic the crucial difference is that fate requires him to act to actually exact the plan. Finally, I come to the last possibility. Perhaps of all the possible choices, this is the one favoured most by Aristotle. It conforms completely to his way of looking at things. This solution is the idea that we are all controlled by fate. Everything is controlled by fate. In Oedipus, if we were to accept this way of looking at things, we would come to the conclusion that the entire Athenian world is one giant chess game. It is as if everything was kick started millions of years ago, with each and every action already planned out. Then as the Gods saw the world developing around them, they decided to punish and reward those who they favoured. Here with Oedipus they have found their plaything. Conforming to the tragic human situation, a basically decent character falls through an error of action that has its origins in his own character. This is merely Aristotle’s theory of tragedy, which is what the play was based on. Personally, I would reject this solution on the basis of when we study a play or another piece of art we do not look at how or why it was made. We should approach it as something individual in its own right. If we can see the idea in the art then yes, perhaps we could accept the conclusion preordained for that piece of art. Yet when the art piece has within it values which I believe to be false, we are also free to reject the preordained solution on that premise. Finally, I would like to give my evaluation of the three methods. Essentially we are dealing with an artificial plot. These series of events do not conform to real world values, only to the vagarities of Aristotle’s mind. Thus when we look at this plot, the mechanics of it cannot be dealt with in a normal way. This is theatre. It has been crafted to look as though the fall is due to some error of action, strongly interlaced with fate. Yet despite all this, I do not feel that this is how the play has materialised. It seems to me as though Oedipus could not have stopped the actual horrific incest and patricide occurring, only the realisation of it. To me, as a non-believer in fate, nothing is due to Oedipus’ character. He seems merely unfortunate, a victim of superstition. Yet to those of you who accept fate, then perhaps this could be the explanation. It is a completely subjective decision, based on a personal interpretation. This is something that I cannot decide. Thus I leave the decision open, but my decision closed. Neither is right, and neither is wrong.