Oedipus Rex and the consequences of knowledge
In the story “Oedipus Rex” by Sophocles. We see a man that has not yet come to grips with what he has done. He does not know how dangerous the knowledge he seeks really is, and he starts by seeking out who murdered the former king of Thebes. Oedipus was warned if he continued to seek the truth the knowledge would blind him, and he would be cast out of the land but curiosity prevailed. He continued to seek out the dangerous truth about his real father, and the murder of Laius. Then he learned who he thought was his father was not his father to begin with, and he continued this downward spiral to oblivion. The story shows 3 clear examples of the dangers that the …show more content…
We see the pursuit of truth can sometimes be dangerous. When Lauren states “When the oracle at Corinth responds to a question about his parentage with the prophecy that he will murder his father and marry his mother, Oedipus cannot possibly understand how the prophecy explains the mystery of his birth. Consequently, he flees his foster parents, kills Laius on the journey away from Corinth” (Silberman p. 296). When Oedipus learned of this curse he ran out of fear that he might do something horrible. He could not let what he thought might happen gtake place. This knowledge drove him away, and him having this knowledge lead to the curse becoming true. If he would not have learned this, maybe his destruction would have never taking place. When he finally learned the whole story about Laius and his mother. It was the final nail in the coffin, and the king of riddles who drove out the sphinx solves his last riddle. P.H Vellacott makes another good point on the dangerous pursuit of …show more content…
Vellacott makes a point that Oedipus should have had some ground rules before leaving. Vellacott makes this point when he says “if he was to avoid heinous pollution he must make for himself two unbreakable rules never to kill an older man, and never to marry an older woman. The incident at the banquet makes it clear that these two rules, and not the resolve to keep away from Corinth would be probable preoccupation of Oedipus” (Vellacott p.140). Now this is interesting because if Oedipus were to do this even if he left Corinth he would have been fine, but Oedipus did not think anything through. He ignored people’s warnings about how dangerous this knowledge is, and left Corinth without a plan. This is why knowledge is not inherently good or evil. It can be dangerous if it’s the wrong kind, but if Oedipus had a plan before leaving maybe things could have turned out
In the story “Oedipus Rex” by Sophocles. We see a man that has not yet come to grips with what he has done. He does not know how dangerous the knowledge he seeks really is, and he starts by seeking out who murdered the former king of Thebes. Oedipus was warned if he continued to seek the truth the knowledge would blind him, and he would be cast out of the land but curiosity prevailed. He continued to seek out the dangerous truth about his real father, and the murder of Laius. Then he learned who he thought was his father was not his father to begin with, and he continued this downward spiral to oblivion. The story shows 3 clear examples of the dangers that the …show more content…
We see the pursuit of truth can sometimes be dangerous. When Lauren states “When the oracle at Corinth responds to a question about his parentage with the prophecy that he will murder his father and marry his mother, Oedipus cannot possibly understand how the prophecy explains the mystery of his birth. Consequently, he flees his foster parents, kills Laius on the journey away from Corinth” (Silberman p. 296). When Oedipus learned of this curse he ran out of fear that he might do something horrible. He could not let what he thought might happen gtake place. This knowledge drove him away, and him having this knowledge lead to the curse becoming true. If he would not have learned this, maybe his destruction would have never taking place. When he finally learned the whole story about Laius and his mother. It was the final nail in the coffin, and the king of riddles who drove out the sphinx solves his last riddle. P.H Vellacott makes another good point on the dangerous pursuit of …show more content…
Vellacott makes a point that Oedipus should have had some ground rules before leaving. Vellacott makes this point when he says “if he was to avoid heinous pollution he must make for himself two unbreakable rules never to kill an older man, and never to marry an older woman. The incident at the banquet makes it clear that these two rules, and not the resolve to keep away from Corinth would be probable preoccupation of Oedipus” (Vellacott p.140). Now this is interesting because if Oedipus were to do this even if he left Corinth he would have been fine, but Oedipus did not think anything through. He ignored people’s warnings about how dangerous this knowledge is, and left Corinth without a plan. This is why knowledge is not inherently good or evil. It can be dangerous if it’s the wrong kind, but if Oedipus had a plan before leaving maybe things could have turned out