The story of Oedipus the King brings up many issues regarding the issue of fate versus free will. In writing this story, Sophocles makes the point that humans are limited in their free-will capabilities. As the story progresses, it seems that the gods ultimately control the lives of human beings because all of the prophesies end up coming true. As much as the characters in the story attempt to escape their fate and take control of their own lives, they are unable to do so because of their ultimate lack of free will. Destiny prevails.
The opening scene of the play exemplifies the power of fate when Creon returns from the Oracle of Delphi to inform the citizens of Thebes that the plague will end when the murderer of Laius is banished from the city. Tiresias takes this prophecy further when he advises the capture of a man who has murdered his father and married his mother. These two prophesies begin the string realizations that unravel the sweaters of Oedipus and Iocaste.
The reader then learns about how Iocaste and Laius unsuccessfully attempted to escape their unfortunate fate and flex their power of free will. Upon hearing a prophesy that their child Oedipus is destined to kill Laius, they sent their baby away to be destroyed in order to escape this unfortunate fate. This action is the first example of humans attempting to escape their destiny and display the power of free will. As the reader knows, however, fate ultimately prevailed against free will in this case when Oedipus killed Laius and married Iocaste. Sophocles shows his belief in the power of fate over free will in displaying Iocaste’s and Laius unsuccessful attempt to escape their destiny.
On the other end of the Totem Poll, the reader sees how Oedipus unsuccessfully attempted to escape this same unfortunate fate. When Oedipus was the Prince of Corinth, he was told a prophesy that he would kill his father and marry his mother. Wanting to escape this terrible fate and exercise his free will, Oedipus fled Corinth for Thebes, never to return. However, as the reader knows, Oedipus could not escape his destiny. Oedipus’s unsuccessful attempt to escape fate is another example of the power of destiny and the lack of free will that the characters exhibit. Sophocles maintains that fate is the ultimate authority which free will cannot challenge, as displayed by Oedipus’s unsuccessful attempt to flee his destiny.
Laius, Iocaste, and Oedipus all learn that fate ultimately governs their lives, and free will plays a minimal role in the hands of destiny. These three characters are like deer being hunted by the lion of destiny. They run and run and run, but no matter how far or how fast they run, the lion of fate will catch up to them and sink the teeth of destiny into their powerless flesh. They will never reach the goal of free will nor will they escape the wrath of their fate. This image appears to be Sophocles’s belief in how the world of humans is ruled. Free will is merely the prey of the Lion of Fate.
However, I disagree with the belief that fate and destiny govern the lives of humans. I believe I have free will to determine the path of my life. I do not think there is a “destiny” laid out in front of me that I must fulfill. I think I have to free will to choose what I will do at any point in my life. Both my short term and long term decisions are for me to make, not for some higher power to decide for me. I am under the belief that my life is in my hands and I can choose whatever it is that I wish to pursue in the future. I disagree with Sophocles’s belief in the power of fate. Free will is a power which all humans are lucky to have. Going back to the lion and deer imagery, I believe that we are all deer, roaming the woods with no threat of any lions coming to feed on our flesh. We are deer with the power to graze any pasture in any land. (703)
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Physically Filling the Role
I feel that of all the excerpts about interpretations of Metamorphosis, excerpt four has the most merit. I agree that Kafka was attempting to portray the idea that Gregor’s family treated him like a bug, through their bitter hatred, their taking advantage of his income, and their carelessness about his happiness and well being. They showed neither love nor understanding for him. The idea that he is a bug in the eyes of his family was the factor that ultimately turned Gregor into an insect.
The main reason that Gregor was unhappy prior to turning into a bug was that he worked an unsatisfying and frustrating job and his family expressed no gratitude for his efforts. Gregor clearly had no passion for his occupation, but was forced to keep working this menial job because he was the only one in the family who was making an income. Gregor hated being the bread-winner of the family, but was obliged to do so because of his father’s, mother’s and sister’s laziness. They placed an unfair burden on poor Gregor by making him earn everything for them. Gregor was not happy with this situation. More importantly, however, his family did not understand that Gregor was not content with being the only bread-winner. Nor did they appreciate all that he did for them. They simply took the money he made for them and continued to make him labor tirelessly while they guzzled up his earnings. By not understanding or appreciating all Gregor did for them, the family treated him as a mere insect who was forced by nature to worked for their benefit. Gregor simply filled the role by transforming into one.
The way that Gregor tirelessly worked for his family while they showed no appreciation or love for him is similar to the way insects help humans while we simply disregard them. The bugs we despise and slaughter are the same creatures that pollinate our flowers, help our farming crops flourish, and keep our atmosphere clean. As humans, we do not show appreciation or gratitude to these insects for their help. We ignore, kill, and express our hatred and disgust with them. Our relationship with bugs is much like the family’s relationship with Gregor. Although he was the driving forced behing their well-being, keeping the family pollinated and flourishing (with money), they showed no appreciation for what he did for them. Gregor was a working insect for a family who cruelly disregarded the work he did for them, while they lazily lounged around the house. By turning into an insect, Gregor filled the role that his family gave him. 437
The main reason that Gregor was unhappy prior to turning into a bug was that he worked an unsatisfying and frustrating job and his family expressed no gratitude for his efforts. Gregor clearly had no passion for his occupation, but was forced to keep working this menial job because he was the only one in the family who was making an income. Gregor hated being the bread-winner of the family, but was obliged to do so because of his father’s, mother’s and sister’s laziness. They placed an unfair burden on poor Gregor by making him earn everything for them. Gregor was not happy with this situation. More importantly, however, his family did not understand that Gregor was not content with being the only bread-winner. Nor did they appreciate all that he did for them. They simply took the money he made for them and continued to make him labor tirelessly while they guzzled up his earnings. By not understanding or appreciating all Gregor did for them, the family treated him as a mere insect who was forced by nature to worked for their benefit. Gregor simply filled the role by transforming into one.
The way that Gregor tirelessly worked for his family while they showed no appreciation or love for him is similar to the way insects help humans while we simply disregard them. The bugs we despise and slaughter are the same creatures that pollinate our flowers, help our farming crops flourish, and keep our atmosphere clean. As humans, we do not show appreciation or gratitude to these insects for their help. We ignore, kill, and express our hatred and disgust with them. Our relationship with bugs is much like the family’s relationship with Gregor. Although he was the driving forced behing their well-being, keeping the family pollinated and flourishing (with money), they showed no appreciation for what he did for them. Gregor was a working insect for a family who cruelly disregarded the work he did for them, while they lazily lounged around the house. By turning into an insect, Gregor filled the role that his family gave him. 437
Sunday, January 13, 2008
The Sloth of Stories
The Death of Ivan Ilych, is a slow, sorrowful story in which not many actions occur. However, the main point that Leo Tolstoy makes in the tale is meaningful lesson that all readers should apply to their daily lives. When thinking back upon this story, I drew the comparison between The Death of Ivan Ilych and a common sloth. Like Tolstoy’s tale, the sloth is a slow and unadventurous animal that does not pursue many actions in the course of its daily life. However, the existence of the slow is vital for the survival of the animal kingdom, making the sloth a necessary and meaningful animal. Like the sloth, The Death of Ivan Ilych is necessary and meaningful story because of the significant life lesson it teaches.
The life lesson that Tolstoy portrays in this story can be summed up in the opening sentence of the second section: “Ivan Ilych’s life had been most simple and most ordinary and therefore most terrible.” This sentence is an example of one of the many ironic statements throughout the tale. After reading the words “simple” and “ordinary,” the reader expects to find a third word to complete the trio that means basically the same thing. However, Tolstoy throws a curveball at the reader by unexpectedly correlating the ordinary life with the terrible existence.
Tolstoy is not saying that anything ordinary is terrible. He is offering the insight that the things that people think are extremely important at one time will not matter so much later on in life. The things that we think will make us happy now, like wealth or power or a good occupation, will not actually give us a fulfilling life. While the things that are truly important, such as health or friends or family, are the things that are truly significant aspects of life that will eventually give us true fulfillment.
Ivan Ilych is an example of a person who was worried about the wrong aspects of life for too long. His priorities were the features of life that are not lasting and do not bring true fulfillment. Ivan wanted to attend the best school, get the best job, hold a lot of power, and be an admired public figure. He was always wanted to do the ordinary things that the people in aristocratic society do. He married Praskovya not because he loved her but because marrying was the normal thing to do for aristocrats during his time. He chose his job within the court system not because he enjoyed the work but because it was powerful, admirable, and most importantly ordinary job for an aristocrat. Ivan’s main priority was to do the normal thing for an aristocratic man. This way of thinking for Ivan led him to a miserable life.
All this time that Ivan was concerned with leading an ordinary aristocratic life, he was disregarding the aspects of life that are truly significant. Due to his terrible life philosophy, Ivan never made any friends. Although he had many acquaintances throughout his years, Ivan was never able to develop a true friend who cared about him and who he cared about. Ivan was too busy worrying about leading an ordinary aristocratic life. Ivan also never developed good family relationships. He did not marry his wife for love and therefore their relationship was doomed from the start. Ivan neglected his children and never cared about being a good father, ruining his relations with his son and his daughter. The third priority that Ivan should have cared more about was his health. When he first became ill, Ivan neglected the doctor’s advice because he did not like the idea of the doctor having power over him. Ivan showed no concern for family, friends, or his health, three priorities that are necessary for a fulfilling life.
Because Ivan was too concerned with leading an ordinary aristocratic life, he neglected the aspects of life that are truly significant. Ivan’s mixed-up priorities led him to a miserable existence. This fact portrays Tolstoy’s message that to lead a fulfilling life, one must understand the truly important aspects of life. Although this story may have been slow and boring like the sloth, the read was worthwhile due to Tolstoy’s great life lesson. 707 words
The life lesson that Tolstoy portrays in this story can be summed up in the opening sentence of the second section: “Ivan Ilych’s life had been most simple and most ordinary and therefore most terrible.” This sentence is an example of one of the many ironic statements throughout the tale. After reading the words “simple” and “ordinary,” the reader expects to find a third word to complete the trio that means basically the same thing. However, Tolstoy throws a curveball at the reader by unexpectedly correlating the ordinary life with the terrible existence.
Tolstoy is not saying that anything ordinary is terrible. He is offering the insight that the things that people think are extremely important at one time will not matter so much later on in life. The things that we think will make us happy now, like wealth or power or a good occupation, will not actually give us a fulfilling life. While the things that are truly important, such as health or friends or family, are the things that are truly significant aspects of life that will eventually give us true fulfillment.
Ivan Ilych is an example of a person who was worried about the wrong aspects of life for too long. His priorities were the features of life that are not lasting and do not bring true fulfillment. Ivan wanted to attend the best school, get the best job, hold a lot of power, and be an admired public figure. He was always wanted to do the ordinary things that the people in aristocratic society do. He married Praskovya not because he loved her but because marrying was the normal thing to do for aristocrats during his time. He chose his job within the court system not because he enjoyed the work but because it was powerful, admirable, and most importantly ordinary job for an aristocrat. Ivan’s main priority was to do the normal thing for an aristocratic man. This way of thinking for Ivan led him to a miserable life.
All this time that Ivan was concerned with leading an ordinary aristocratic life, he was disregarding the aspects of life that are truly significant. Due to his terrible life philosophy, Ivan never made any friends. Although he had many acquaintances throughout his years, Ivan was never able to develop a true friend who cared about him and who he cared about. Ivan was too busy worrying about leading an ordinary aristocratic life. Ivan also never developed good family relationships. He did not marry his wife for love and therefore their relationship was doomed from the start. Ivan neglected his children and never cared about being a good father, ruining his relations with his son and his daughter. The third priority that Ivan should have cared more about was his health. When he first became ill, Ivan neglected the doctor’s advice because he did not like the idea of the doctor having power over him. Ivan showed no concern for family, friends, or his health, three priorities that are necessary for a fulfilling life.
Because Ivan was too concerned with leading an ordinary aristocratic life, he neglected the aspects of life that are truly significant. Ivan’s mixed-up priorities led him to a miserable existence. This fact portrays Tolstoy’s message that to lead a fulfilling life, one must understand the truly important aspects of life. Although this story may have been slow and boring like the sloth, the read was worthwhile due to Tolstoy’s great life lesson. 707 words
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)