Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Stunaep on November 04, 2003, 11:34:20 am
-
Discuss.
-
donuts.
-
won't do.
-
peanuts?
-
ok, wasn't Oedipus about that guy that killed his father and married his mom?
first he got addopted, then he went looking for his real parents, met his real dad without recognising him, got into a fight, killed him, got into the the big city, met his mom and married her without knowing it was his mom
-
Exactly.
And the question is: Was it Fate (in the form of the prophecy "Thou shalt kill thy dad, and marry thy mother") that made everything turn out the way it did, or was it his own free will (sorta).
Oh, having read the tragedy is a plus.
-
well, my Latin teacher explained it to me in short, and my Greek teacher gave it some short attention.
and really, why did he go looking for his real parents again?
and who made the prophecy? i am kind of lost here, i only heard about this once, and a long, long time ago.
-
He didn't go looking for his real parents. He didn't know he was adopted, so he fled the house of his fosterparents to prevent the fulfillment of the prophecy.
As for your second question, the prophecy was given by the Oracle of Delphi.
-
ah, now i remember.
That Delphi Oracle always finds a way to create problems in these Greek tragedy's, doesn't it?
i see all of this as free choice, or rather accidential chance, and a nice bit of a temporal paradox. i see no such thing as something predestent, since the Oracle of Delphi oracled by inhaling vulcanic fumes, and those calls are as reliable as the prophecys from a guy on acid.
-
well, yeah, but this is a play, so we can pretty much ignore that, yes.
-
i never really cared for Greek play's, i prefer Roman history, it's rather fun to translate from the (somewhat edited) original.
-
I always loved Greek History, that's why I just spent a week in Greece ;)
Oedipus ended up blind, but doing a lot of good for the town he lived in, as was predicted by the Delphi, so remember, if you kill your Dad and marry your Mum, you'll go blind ;)
Flipside :)
-
i like Roman stuff more, for once, i can translate it a lot better then Greek, and it involves a lot more violence, and it really happened.
most of the Greek stuff is Mythology, not History, big difference.
in school, with Latin, we go chronologicly, and we're currently around Caligula, Claudius, and Nero. mmmm, treason....
-
well, yeah, but I've got to write an essay said subject, so let's go back to an in-depth analysis of Oedipus' behaviour.
Flipside, you were saying... ;)
-
LOL
Well, all I will say is that stories and plays in Greek times were meant to half entertain, and half act as a social instruction manual. this is why The Iliad contains so many repeated phrases; 'So, Perseus did slice the lamb in three and one part did he offer to Zues, and after he had sliced the lamb in three and offered one part to Zues, Perseus did whatever', because it is not only telling a story, it's also acting as a kind of religious tutorage, telling you how to make an offering to Zeus (often in the unlikely event of being chased by Sea Monsters or gigantic stop-motion birds, but the thought is there ;) )
So rather than examining the story, maybe you should try looking at the social side of the play and how it instructed the audience, rather than just the 'content' of the story ;)
Flipside :D
-
From the Bible to the popular song,
There's one theme that we find right along;
Of all ideals they hail as good,
The most sublime is motherhood.
There was a man though, who it seems,
Once carried this ideal to extremes.
He loved his mother and she loved him,
And yet his story is rather grim.
There once lived a man named Oedipus Rex,
You may have heard about his odd complex.
His name appears in Freud's index
'Cause he loved his mother.
His rivals used to say quite a bit
That as a monarch he was most unfit.
But still in all they had to admit
That he loved his mother.
Yes, he loved his mother like no other,
His daughter was his sister and his son was his brother.
One thing on which you can depend is,
He sure knew who a boy's best friend is.
When he found what he had done,
He tore his eyes out, one by one.
A tragic end to a loyal son
Who loved his mother.
So be sweet and kind to mother,
Now and then have a chat.
Buy her candy or some flowers,
Or a brand new hat.
But maybe you had better let it go at that.
Or you may find yourself with a quite complex complex
And you may end up like Oedipus.
(I'd rather marry a duck-billed platypus)
Than end up like old Oedipus Rex.
Tom Lehrer. :D
-
yes stu i know you need to read that book its pretty good IF you understand wtf theyr actually talking about.... anyway its pretty shure it was fate and probobly a temporal causality effect :)
-
Flipside! You gave me an Idea! Good Heavens! Save Us!
-
I'd go with fate.
For one, King Laius and his wife, Jocasta, were given a prophecy that Laius' son would kill Laius and marry his mother. Jocasta thus sent their baby to die in the mountains(the only way possible without being punished by the gods... which, IIRC, is to put a hook or something in the achilles tendon). The baby would then be left to die. No one would pick the baby up because it was considered 'mutilated'.
However, Oedipus was still rescued, and when he grew up he was given the prophecy that he would kill his father and marry his mother. He ran away from what he believed was his real father and mother. However, when he came to the crossroads he met with fate. A carriage carrying King Laius came along, and since Oedipus was a Prince, he thought that he had more importance. However, the King knew he had more importance and kept going. Thus Oedipus killed the driver, and when Laius hit Oedipus with a stick, Oedipus killed Laius, without knowing who he really was.
Then comes where he solves the riddle of the sphinx(very popular btw), and the people ask him to become King and throw in Jocasta(widowed wife now) as a bonus. They marry, and thus Oedipus fulfills the prophecy without even knowing.
I don't see how it could be 'choice' if he didn't even know what he was doing. Thus I'd have to say fate.
-
Well yeah, but there are several things here that are affected by Oedipus' rather hot character: Leaving his fosterparents, killing Laios (especially this one, I mean, someone with an ounce of cold blood wouldn't have started killing people because they didn't let him pass), agreeing to become the king of Thebes, and last, but definately not least, finishing the investigation of Laios' murder. Remember, both Theiresias and Jocasta warned him not to continue, he himself knew that no good was gonna come out of this, but still, he went through with the investingation.
-
Well, it's quite obviously fate. I mean, not only in his case, but a fair-sized chunk of Greek mythology is devoted to the self-fulfilling prophecy and quite plainly making the point that, try as you might, you can't alter your fate.
However, they've got a very cool approach to it. See, while things are fated (i.e. that Oedipus would kill his father and marry his mother), not all things are, only the most generalized outline of what will happen- and sometimes barely even that. Any other portion of his life could have been lived another way (i.e. he could have stayed at home, refused the kingship, etc.), and the specific events prophecised would have still happened, but nothing else is certain, because they're not prophecised,
There's the example of, um... damn, name escapes me, anyway, Greek king who wants to go to war with his neighbor, asks an oracle about it (naturally), hears a prediction of military victory and the devastation of a nation. So he goes out, is careless in battle assuming victory is assured him, screws it up, and is utterly destroyed, because all the oracle foresaw was a victory and a country getting devastated, not of which country would get what- that was still up in the air.
Of course, this is all theoretical, but that's what the old myths read like to me. The moral is inevitably that you can't escape your fate, no matter where you run you'll always be running towards it- but not that you should just give up and be resigned to having your life lead for you because of this, but that you shouldn't worry so much about the things that are certain to happen, but try to make the best of everything else.
That enough BS to write part of a paper on? I dunno.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
Discuss.
(http://dynamic4.gamespy.com/~freespace/forums/images/smilies/wtf.gif)
-
It's something literates know about. Don't worry about it.
-
We did Oedipus in year twelve, and basically came up with what's alerady been said. Greek theatre was originally attatched to religious festivals, and, especially in tragedys, no matter how entertaining the play, at its core there was always a religious or philisophical message of some kind, usually about the power of the gods, risk of defying them, or, in ORs case, thje futility of defying fate. I always thought of Sophocles was trying to demonstrate that fate, and the will of the gods, was actually inextricably tied in with what we believe is free will, and that, in matters of the gods at least, there was no such thing as free will (Note the contrasts between this and the Christian concept of free will as the device that allows man to defy god). When on he road into Thebes, Oedipus met Laius and believed he chose to kill him (Note - Oedipus never knew about the prophecy) and also that he chose Jocasta as his wife. The audience would have been familiar with the myth, and realized that personal choice was, at best a minor factor in determining the outcome, but Oedipus didn't realize this. Thus, Sophocles demonstrates that, no matter how hard we try to defy the gods and exercise free will, ultimately we'll always play into their hands.
-
Fate. I think free will can still lead to determined circumstances, but I can't explain it without making myself look like an idiot. :p
-
Hm. Since everyone's basically saying the same thing on the subject thus far, and decent non-solipsistic philosophical/literary threads come up so very rarely, I'll take this on a tangent by pointing out that technically it's very hard to provide a rational basis for free will in the first place.
I mean, how, exactly, do you define it? Is something free because you can't see the restraints that made a particular action or result necessary? Can it merely be a set reaction to an action? Well, rocks aren't free, they fall down if you drop 'em, because of the unseen force of gravity. So right there, no materialist model of the mind if you wanna believe it- quite rigid parameters in anything controlled by physical laws, it has to be a direct result of specific causes.
So theorize a soul, some metaphysical entity, as the Greeks most certainly would have (as most people do today). Just because it's not regulated by any laws we know of does that make it free from causation? Don't you typically take your hand off a burner because it's hot, pick your favorite flavor of ice cream because you prefer it, choose a different one when you want to try and contest determinism? All of these are direct results of tangible causes- thoughts, preferences, instinctual reactions to outside forces. Under the circumstances, no other result is possible unless you add in another variable of causation (i.e. they're out of chocolate so you go for one of those nasty fruit ice creams, you're so massively stoned you don't notice the burning, you're stuck in a philsophical quandary and can't make a choice either way). The only actions entirely free, entirely independent of causation, would have to be completely random. And it's pretty plain that not only are we not random entities, there is no way we would want to be, such would more or less negate the existence of a person as we know it, and in fact there's little or nothing that can be considered random in our Universe at all.
So, free will as it is termed here is a logical fallacy. You're always going to react to the stimuli around you in an ultimately predictable fashion (whether anyone can actually predict it is another issue- it'd be a rare case where one would know all the variables involved), and since those causes have their own causes, and so on ad infinitum, one who knew all the facts of the matter could claim there was a fate of some sort- since every action has a specific reaction, if you go down the line you could predict anything perfectly accurately.
But then, that's not going to help you on your paper in the slightest.
Steak: What you want is probably a school of philosophy called "weak determinism", which says basically everything I just had above but adds that "free will" is instead defined as actions with at least some direct causes being internal to the mind- i.e. ignoring indirect causation and claiming that so long as you aren't physically forced into something by, say, a psychopath with a gun to your head, you have free will. Events are still 100% predictable if one knows all the factors in a given situation, but free will still exists after a fashion. Seems like rather a cop-out to me, but it's a popular out from the dilemma above and has the whole free will/fate thing resolved.
-
Elaborating on your point, Stryke, yeah, one could claim, that all that Oedipus did was ultimately predetermined by god, even the parts of the prophecy that were completed due to the nature of his character, because the gods created his personality to fulfill the promise.
But remind me, do Greek gods have the power to shape one's mind. Because if they don't, this falls out
-
Erm... no, they control peoples' minds from time to time, but as a standard practice they don't. And generally when they do they're having people do things like go insane and kill everyone in a 50-mile radius. Subtlety wasn't really in the reportoire, which was one of the things that made 'em so damn cool.
However, you'll probably want to incorporate the whole story about the three Fates- you know, where people's lifetimes are measured out in string and cut representing an absolute duration, and (sometimes, depending on which versions of the myths you wanna pay attention to) most everything that happens during it.
-
If I teach a dog to fetch a stick then throw a stick, shout "Fetch" and get mauled by the dog, it is neither evidence for nor against the presence of free-will.
But on a more acurate and irrefutable note: You push one domino, it makes the next one fall.
So, if you trail this little chain action and reaction then extend it to include not only the actions and reactions of dominoes, but those of quantum particles, it is impossible to deny that the simple principle of cause and effect results in the inevitable outcome; that everything is pre-destined by the state and conditions of the universe both before and during its creation.
And if anyone cites Chaos Theory as 'proof' that the above fact is untrue, I will smack them senseless and label them a complete moron for speaking upon a subject which they have little or no grasp of. The only exception to this being Mikhael.
So no matter what the intention of the Gods was, it was all down to fate. Even if no-one knew it.
-
yes, but who really cares?