I have always found this story to be very interesting. As disturbing as it is, it is still fascinating and I understand why it has had so much influence on Psychologist such as Freud and on other aspects on modern culture. However whenever I learned about this story, the question of fate always came up, and that Oedipus was subject to fate and there was nothing he could do about it. But this textbook talked about Aristotle’s point of view about the “tragic flaw’ which has been misinterpreted and provided a whole other point of view. According to the text Aristotle didn’t believe that the plays were about heroes. But about the features of life such as happiness and misery. The text says that Aristotle’s belief in a ‘Tragic Flaw’ has often been misinterpreted and that the story should not be taken as man vs fate. Rather, the text suggested that it could be seen as a ‘defence of Athens’ traditional religion’ against new ones, in this case the cult of Tyche, or Chance. When he left the traditional religion, Oedipus connected himself with the cult of chance, and by doing so he used his free will, which lead to his series of unfortunate events.

I had never heard of this interpretation before and find that it is quite interesting to look at it in this way.


One thought on “Oedipus the King

  1. That is actually interesting. The idea that Oedipus could mean to preserve their current traditions rather than adapting to new ones, which the greeks and romans tended to do. It also shows that when we think a myth we tend to have a pre assumption on what the meaning of it is.

Comments are closed.