Free Essay: Blindness Flaws and Knowledge of Truth in Oedipus Rex

The antiquated Greeks were affectionate adherents of Fate. Destiny is defined by the guideline or the deciding cause or will by which things, when all is said and done, are accepted to be as they are or occasions to happen as the do. The Greeks hold of fate was marginally adjusted. They trusted that the divine beings decided Fate: this fate is the destiny, to which mysteriously the divine beings themselves were subject, was an indifferent power proclaiming extreme things just, and unconcerned with step by step undertakings. It was felt that these divine beings worked in unpretentious ways; this records for character defects called harmatia or the tragic flaw (Dawe and Sophocles). Past Greeks thought the divine beings would change a man's character, all together for that individual to endure or pick up from the fitting result. Such was the situation in Oedipus' story where characters like Oedipus and his parents Jocasta and Laius- wanted to fend off fate by being ignorant. As such, this essay will discuss the argument that it is better to be flawed and know the truth than to be flawless and ignorant to the truth.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Discussion of the play Oedipus the King

Sophocles has been known for utilizing his plays not only to stimulate his viewers but rather to convey a message as well. Out of the greater part of the imperative lessons in his plays, knowledge emerges as the most occupied effect. All things considered, No law or statute is mightier than understanding. In the play Oedipus the King, Sophocles utilizes the blindness of Teiresias, Jocasta, and Oedipus to call attention to how understanding is far more prominent than vision alone. In the play Oedipus the King, Sophocles utilize the blindness of Teiresias to call attention to the colossal force of intelligence and knowledge. Sometimes the blind can "see" more than those who have sight. Amid a terrifying play or an awful occasion, individuals may cover their eyes, picking not to see reality (Rocco). As individuals, we frequently get to be dug in the material world, being oblivious of and not able to see the most evident truths. Oedipus, the lead character in Sophocles' play Oedipus the King, couldn't see reality, yet the blind man, Teiresias, and saw it obviously. Sophocles utilizes visual deficiency or blindness as a theme and as a part of the play Oedipus. Oedipus, known for his insight, is ignorant and in this way oblivious to reality about himself and his past. When Teiresias exposed reality, he disregarded. It is left to Oedipus to conquer his blindness to understand reality and acknowledge destiny (Knowles).

Presently, in the event that beyond any doubt tragedy is the outcome of a man's aggregate impulse to assess himself legitimately, his pulverization in the endeavor sets a wrong or an insidiousness in his surroundings. What's more, this is the profound quality of catastrophe and its lesson. The revelation of the ethical law, which is the thing that the illumination of catastrophe comprises of, is not the disclosure of some dynamic or magical amount. The deplorable right is a state of life, a condition in which the human identity can bloom and acknowledge itself. The wrong is the condition that smothers man debases the streaming out of his adoration and imaginative sense. Catastrophe edifies and it must, in that it focuses the brave finger at the foe of man's flexibility. The push for flexibility is the quality in the disaster that commends (Sophocles and David). The progressive addressing of the steady environment is what alarms. Not the slightest bit is the normal man suspended from such musings or such activities. Found in this light, the turn may incompletely represent our absence of catastrophe that present day writing has taken toward the psychiatric perspective of life, or the simply sociological. On the outside, the chance that every one of our tragedies, our indignities, are brought up inside of our brains, then all activity, not to mention the brave activity, is clearly incomprehensible (Storm).

The imagery of sight versus visual deficiency percolates all through Sophocles' play. Oedipus the King speaks of knowledge versus obliviousness. The representation of sight versus blindness is utilized by Sophocles to stress the appalling blemish and deplorable self-revelation of Oedipus. A considerable lot of Sophocles' characters, and additionally the Oedipus himself, consolidate this example of light versus dimness into their examination of both Oedipus and the current circumstance. Numerous announcements made by Oedipus not just demonstrate the contention between others' information and his obliviousness, additionally the incongruity of what he accepts to be valid (Sophocles, Frederic, Benard and Cynthia). In one instance, Oedipus calls for Tiresias, to locate the killer of Laius. At the point when the visually impaired oracles' subtlety recommends that Oedipus is the executioner, Oedipus gets mad and troubled, and retorts. "... You've lost your energy, stone-blindness, stone-hard of hearing faculties, eyes blind as a stone. You can't hurt me or any other person who sees the light " you can never touch me you devout extortion (Knowles 94). Unexpectedly it is Tiresias, the blind seer, who sees reality. Oedipus sees no difference amongst physical, visual blindness and lack of awareness. Hence, the misinformed Oedipus infers that he knows reality and Tiresias does not, uncovering the incongruity of his announcement. In the latter stages of the play, another reference of sight versus visual impairment is made. When Oedipus finds of his part in the passing of Laius and understands the reality of the prior prediction, makes Oedipus get to be irritated. He then hurries to discover his wife/mother dead. Jocasta had conferred suicide by hanging herself, after taking in the reality of Oedipus past. Seeing Jocasta dead, Oedipus then continues to cut his own eyes out and clarifies his inspiration.

Conclusion

In the unexpected deplorable play of Oedipus Rex, the utilization of sight and visual deficiency is conveyed throughout the characters to pass on a feeling of truth and information. Sophocles builds up a converse relationship between physical, visual impairment and inward vision through the characters of Tiresias and Oedipus, and to a lesser degree, Jocasta. Tiresias, the visually impaired diviner, most obviously shows the incomprehensible relationship in the middle of visual impairment and sight in the play. Oedipus results in recognizing that he, himself was the killer of his introduction to the world father, Laius, and he is likewise the reason for the incessant plague in Thebes (Storm). One of the ideas that Sophocles uses in Oedipus the King is the idea of sight and blindness. Much to his dismay, this was not a minor coincidence. Oedipus has physical sight, but rather is blind to reality and truth. It is when Oedipus becomes cognizant of what he has done and acknowledges that the prediction has the truth be told been satisfied. Jocasta is another character in the play that has physical sight yet is rationally blind. Oedipus realizes that he is at fault for everything that has happened, and he can't bear seeing what he has coincidentally caused.

Works Cited

Dawe, R D, and Sophocles. Sophocles, Oedipus Rex. Cambridge [u.a.: Cambridge Univ. Press, 1995. Print.

Holland, Glenn S. Divine Irony. Selinsgrove, PA: Susquehanna University Press [u.a., 2000. Print.

Knowles, John. A Separate Peace: A Seperate Peace Series. S.I: Scribner, 2014. Internet resource.

Rocco, Christopher. Tragedy and Enlightenment: Athenian Political Thought and the Dilemmas of Modernity. Berkeley, Calif: Univ. of California Press, 1997. Print.

Sophocles, and David D. Mulroy. Oedipus at Colonus. , 2014. Print.

Sophocles, Frederic Will, Bernard Knox, and Cynthia Johnson. Oedipus the King. New York: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2009. Print.

Storm, William. Irony and the Modern Theatre. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 2011. Print.