Oedipus Rex

C.A.,

Oedipus the King, if you haven't heard of it, is a Greek tragedy by Sophocles. I have enjoyed it both times I've read it, though it is most certainly tragic.

In the play, sophistic and mantic philosophies are contrasted by showing the final result of the play in prophecy and then putting together the unlikely puzzle logically throughout the play to show the same result. Oedipus's wife (and mother – hence the term “Oedipus complex”) represents the sophistic point of view, while Tiresias, a blind prophet, represents the mantic side. Both epistemologies are effective in showing the truth, but certain characters in the play will not believe the one until the other proves true. For example, although he fears the oracle which would make him so abominable, Oedipus still seeks to prove it wrong. His wife is even more skeptic, believing such oracles to be nonsense, not to be heeded, – believing it right up until the hour of her suicide. Creon, however, puts all his trust in the prophecies of oracles and seers, and even recommends Tiresias to Oedipus as his most trusted prophet.

In the end, though, both the prophecies of the gods and the reasoning of man draw the same conclusion. And those involved realize the mistake of denying one in favor of the other. Oedipus thought he had escaped his foretold destiny, but instead, he had stumbled right in it.

The play seems not to prefer one view over the other. It does show how painful it was for Oedipus's family when they disbelieved divination. On the other hand, had there been no prophecy, the result would have been the same, since Oedipus learned everything through his sophistic investigation.

Anyway, the reason our conversation made me think of this play was that I think I have found the difference between us. I believe we both want truth. We just have different default ways of obtaining it. My default method is my religion. If I hear reason that specifically contradicts something I know from my religion, I don't change my mind about my religion. Instead, I automatically look for a flaw in the reasoning. On the other hand, your default method is reason. If you hear religion that specifically contradicts something you know from your reasoning, you don't change your mind about the reasoning. Instead, you automatically look for a flaw in the religion.

For me, neither epistemology has ever had to be the right one. I have found that science and my religion do not contradict each other. I admit I used to be confused when they seemed to collide, but I just continued on in faith. And it has ALWAYS turned out that they coincide. In fact, the more I learn of one, the more I come to appreciate the other, and vice versa.

As for how I know how I know. Well, I don't really know how I know. How does anyone know anything? He perceives it. He is... aware of it. It is something about which he is absolutely certain or sure. How does a child know his mum loves him? Some parents tell their children so. But how could he possibly know if she's telling the truth? Actions maybe? Perhaps she shows her love. But some parents are not consistent in showing affection. Besides, how would he know it's genuine? Still, a child can know his parent's love, even though there is no way he could actually prove it to the rest of the world to the point of absolute certainty.

Anyhow, this is way too long for a comment box, so I'll start a new blog and direct you to it. Thanks for reading.

C.A.W.