Was Blind, But Now I See: Shifting Fates in Sophocles's Oedipus the King

First of all, I would like to talk about Sophocles's effective use of the theme of vision in Oedipus the King. When Oedipus and Teiresias argue, Oedipus is quick to mock Teiresias’s blindness. Teiresias in turn calls Oedipus the one that is really blind. As we discussed in class, the scene is ironic because the blind man (Teiresias) sees something that the sighted do not (that Oedipus killed Laios, married his mother, etc.). But one line in particular stood out. It occurs when Teiresias talks in riddles to Oedipus about his past. He remarks that the killer who Oedipus is seeking is a “blind man who has his eyes now; a penniless man, who is rich now.” This quote highlights an important theme in the story and an issue relevant to human life. Namely, that life can bring about shifting fates. Oedipus thinks that he has complete control of his destiny, but really he is woefully unaware of what is happening in his life. He thinks that he can outsmart the oracle and set his life on a straight, unwavering course. This turns out to be hubris. Despite his best efforts to avoid his fate, he ends up fulfilling it. With one (giant) revelation, his fate changes completely, and he goes from rich to poor, seeing to blind. Ironically, as Teiresias points out, he also goes from the city’s greatest riddle solver to being unable to solve Teiresias’s riddle. I think the takeaway that Sophocles wants the reader to get from the story is that one can never be sure where one stands with regards to fate.
I originally thought that Sophocles message was: because we cannot guess what fate has in store for us, we should try to live an honorable and decent life without worrying about it. After all, one thing Oedipus could have done to avoid his fate was not kill anybody. But obviously the Oracle took into account that it was not in Oedipus’s character to have shown mercy instead of killing. If Sophocles is arguing that fate is responsible for everything, then there really is no take away, because then the story would assert that we as humans can not learn lessons if we have not already been predetermined to do so. So I guess I can’t add “…so try to live a decent life.” to my assertion that the takeaway of the story is “that one can never be sure where one stands with regards to fate” because Sophocles doesn’t seem to say that living a decent life will help any. I guess the most important point Sophocles was highlighting was how ridiculous it was of Oedipus to think that he had escaped fate. No one can do that, no matter how much they think they see.
This lesson would be even more significant if the audience already knew the story. It was probably almost comical watching Oedipus vow revenge on a murder that he himself had committed. The audience familiar with the story must have found Oedipus struggles against a predetermined fate laughably futile. In a way, the people who were watching the play but already know the story were watching from the gods’ point of view.

The Unexamined Life

For my blog, I would like to talk about two of the prompts, number three and number five. I think they highlight significant points in The Death of Ivan Ilych. First of all, the fact that Tolstoy condemns Ivan is significant. The reader can infer Tolstoy’s condemnation from a variety of sources. I believe the most notable example is the fact that Ivan is unable to face death, which shows that he has not truly lived. As we discussed in class, part of living a full life is being prepared for death, which Ivan obviously is not.
Blythe also notes that despite his flaws the reader sympathizes with him and with his death. I found myself initially liking Ivan: he had an admirable career and a respectable life. But, as Blythe mentions, it was filled with vanity. Because Tolstoy gives the reader such a thorough description of Ivan’s life, one can examine it to find where Ivan goes wrong.
One of the most striking things about Ivan’s life is how unremarkable it is. His suffering is not some poetic justice for a life of debauchery, just a life of insignificance. Ivan chose to focus on superficial things like furniture, so he is unable to cope when he is forced to face a significant thing like dying. This brings me to prompt number five, where Blythe suggests that Ivan is “a man. . . who had not taken the trouble to grow up, morally speaking, while he was passing through [life], and. . then [shows] how salvation could overtake a slowing pulse rate, bringing maturity at the last.” I do not know about the end part of that quote, whether in dying Ivan finally finds salvation, but the beginning part makes a lot of sense. He is so proud of moving on up the bureaucratic ladder that he never stops to ponder his true position in life. Ivan is shallow because he equates doing what others perceive as appropriate or proper to be a fulfilling life. Obviously, the way he equates success with his job and his house as opposed to how well he has lived his life is the ultimate showcase of his vanity. Another equally important example though is his marriage. Tolstoy makes Ivan’s marriage another source of poetic justice for Ivan. His marriage, which Tolstoy makes clear is nothing more than a marriage of convenience, is, ironically, anything but convenient. His wife, who he never really got to know, turns out to be annoying and possibly psychotic. Ivan, true to his character, marginalizes the problem instead of fixing it, disconnecting him from his wife further. Their utter lack of affection for each other adds more misery to Ivan’s life when he is dying.
The Death of Ivan Ilych reminds me of the Socrates quote “the unexamined life is not worth living,” which (I think) means that a person who does not question their existence is living an unfulfilled life. Ivan does not make any attempt to think about his life; instead, he seems content to skim the surface. Therefore, when he realizes as he is dying how empty his life was, it seems as though Tolstoy is giving the reader the ultimate example of this quote.