1. Aristotle believed this was the finest tragedy because the protagonist 's recognition of the truth coincides with the reversal of his fortunes [peripetes]. Where, exactly, does this occur in the play? (From the Temple University Study Guide.)
They coincide when the shepherd informs Oedipus that he is Laio 's son. Oedipus acts accordingly. "Ah God!/It was true!/All the prophecies!/--Now,/I, Oedipus,/Oedipus, damned in his birth, in his marriage/O Light, may I look on you for the last time! damned,/Damned in the blood he shed with his own hand!"(Online Translation,Scene 4, end of pg. 64).
2. As the footnote on p. 72 (100 in the longer edition) explains, Aristotle said that a tragedy should evoke two emotions: terror (because we realize that …show more content…
How would Freud answer the question above (about whether or not Oedipus Rex is universal)? Pay particular attention to the paragraph in the middle of page 75 ("If Oedipus Rex moves a modern audience...")
Freud would make a distinction, without providing any sort of justification for his claim, between destiny vs. free-will and the "material on which that contrast is exemplified". His premise is flawed, and, therefore, I reject his entire argument. The effect of the pity and terror is due to the contrast of destiny versus free-will,not the medium on which the contrast is exemplified. That is why the topic of destiny vs. free-will is still considered worthwhile and taught, unlike the pseudo-intellectual quack known as Freud, who is used as a warning of what not to do.
5. In the footnote at the bottom of p. 75, Freud observes that critics fiercely oppose his suggestion that "childhood impulses toward incest ... persist in the unconscious." Even if you do not believe that you ever desired your opposite-sex parent as a child, consider Freud 's broader point: the character of Oedipus acts out completely unconscious impulses that people can 't bear to recognize in themselves: "we shrink back from him with the whole force of the repression by which those wishes have since that time been held down within us." To what extent do you agree with that broader point? Support your answer with evidence from the …show more content…
Critics oppose Freud 's suggestion because, using his own term here, it 's a projection of himself and his insecurities onto the text. Oedipus doesn 't desire to fornicate with his mother or murder his father: it 's Oedipus 's destiny (even a basic understanding of the plot is evidence enough for this claim). How can a baby have an unconcious desire if it is incapable of any thought but acquistion of base necessities via crying?This whole line of reasoning is akin to stating that all individuals unconciously desire to commit genocide but repress that desire, and because the act itself is morally reprehensible means that it 's alleged repression if one doesn 't act out on the alleged desire. That statement is as much of convoluted mess as all of Freud 's other debunked theories. Incest isn 't abhorrent because it is humanity 's alleged, latent desires becoming manifest. Incest is abhorrent because sexual relations with relatives is morally repugnant--this thought is explicitly stated,reinforced, and perpetuated throughout history in laws,entertainment, and public
They coincide when the shepherd informs Oedipus that he is Laio 's son. Oedipus acts accordingly. "Ah God!/It was true!/All the prophecies!/--Now,/I, Oedipus,/Oedipus, damned in his birth, in his marriage/O Light, may I look on you for the last time! damned,/Damned in the blood he shed with his own hand!"(Online Translation,Scene 4, end of pg. 64).
2. As the footnote on p. 72 (100 in the longer edition) explains, Aristotle said that a tragedy should evoke two emotions: terror (because we realize that …show more content…
How would Freud answer the question above (about whether or not Oedipus Rex is universal)? Pay particular attention to the paragraph in the middle of page 75 ("If Oedipus Rex moves a modern audience...")
Freud would make a distinction, without providing any sort of justification for his claim, between destiny vs. free-will and the "material on which that contrast is exemplified". His premise is flawed, and, therefore, I reject his entire argument. The effect of the pity and terror is due to the contrast of destiny versus free-will,not the medium on which the contrast is exemplified. That is why the topic of destiny vs. free-will is still considered worthwhile and taught, unlike the pseudo-intellectual quack known as Freud, who is used as a warning of what not to do.
5. In the footnote at the bottom of p. 75, Freud observes that critics fiercely oppose his suggestion that "childhood impulses toward incest ... persist in the unconscious." Even if you do not believe that you ever desired your opposite-sex parent as a child, consider Freud 's broader point: the character of Oedipus acts out completely unconscious impulses that people can 't bear to recognize in themselves: "we shrink back from him with the whole force of the repression by which those wishes have since that time been held down within us." To what extent do you agree with that broader point? Support your answer with evidence from the …show more content…
Critics oppose Freud 's suggestion because, using his own term here, it 's a projection of himself and his insecurities onto the text. Oedipus doesn 't desire to fornicate with his mother or murder his father: it 's Oedipus 's destiny (even a basic understanding of the plot is evidence enough for this claim). How can a baby have an unconcious desire if it is incapable of any thought but acquistion of base necessities via crying?This whole line of reasoning is akin to stating that all individuals unconciously desire to commit genocide but repress that desire, and because the act itself is morally reprehensible means that it 's alleged repression if one doesn 't act out on the alleged desire. That statement is as much of convoluted mess as all of Freud 's other debunked theories. Incest isn 't abhorrent because it is humanity 's alleged, latent desires becoming manifest. Incest is abhorrent because sexual relations with relatives is morally repugnant--this thought is explicitly stated,reinforced, and perpetuated throughout history in laws,entertainment, and public