Overview of Oedipus:
Oedipus is a man who is unbalanced between mind and body. Neglectful of inconvenient facts which may impede his desires (Oedipus is nominally lame from the pins hammered into his ankles as a baby being exposed, one of the meanings of Oedipus is swollenfoot), prideful of his ability to perform intellectual tricks (the sphinx's riddle), and disdainful of any Deeper Truths which are not readily apparent to his eye.
He is new to the city of Thebes, and without regard to any deeper knowledge, sets out to cure all of it's troubles, simply by way of his glib mental tricks. As the apparent immediate prosperity due to his solution to the Sphinx's riddle begins to wear away, and a papered over evil begins to reassert itself, he again glibly declares that he himself, will solve all the problems once again, setting off another even more devastating round of unintended consequences.
The play is his discovery, and we the audience discover it too, that closer consideration slowly reveals deeper layers of truth. In the Play we discover ever more deeper Truths about Oedipus and his relation to his family, friends and body politic, of the unstoppable momentum of Underlying Principled Truths, and of man's inability and folly in trying to bury them with sophistry. Truths, which had he taken the care to move more slowly and inquiringly, reveal what happens to a man who tries to soar by way of mental gymnastics alone, separated from, and disregarding the wider truths of Nature, the earth and body politic about him. Taking each truth as if it were an isolated fact in a sophistic syllogism, which may be sound within its own internal logic chopping, and has the Hubris to deem that soundness as valid for ignoring all the outlying facts of reality:
He is at root someone trying desperately to deny and ignore who he is, in order to avoid becoming what he fears - and the inevitable result of not facing or trying to understand your most dreaded fears, and instead Acting, based on only the most superficial of sophistic deductions - attempting to use unprincipled, pragmatic, sophistry to override the course of Truth and Principle, results in bringing the dreaded fear into realization (the law of unintended consequences).
One of the key questions that Sophocles nearly begs you to ask of his play, is why did Oedipus not investigate the rumors of his 'fate' further? Because, as with most pretentious elites - then and now -, whose heads are stuffed with facts devoid of an integrating Education, he had gleaned a superficial level of understanding, and deeming that Sound, felt no need to look any further, to learn any more of the relevant facts or principles involved - just dove headlong after his immediate conclusion, and so immediately brought about the first of the fears he sought to avoid, killing his true father. Was the carriage'd man who roughly shoved him aside a bad man, or a man having a bad day? Oedipus didn't even turn to look at the carriage he no doubt must have heard approaching him from behind, much less step aside for it to pass, and on being accosted as the carriage barreled down upon him, he felt no need to question or consider - he only knew that in that moment he immediately felt offended and pained, surely they must be thugs and brigands - who else would wish him to step aside from the track he was walking on? and that was all the sufficient cause and knowledge he felt he needed to justify killing the men he had never met before.
Did he ever investigate the reason for his deformity? Did he ever ask of his 'parents' (whom here stand in for, and signify a somewhat deeper level of underlying truths and principles) the reason for the scars upon his ankles? Did he ever delve any deeper into the mystery of his 'Fate'? Had he been someone who had paid attention, and sought deeper wisdom, he would have discovered the truth - and in so doing, Possibly might have changed his stars, but Teiresias knew that the Gods & Fate knew their subject, knew that he would plunge in disregarding all custom, disdainful of any and all deeper meanings in favor of a glib solution, and so guaranteed -- his Tragic fate.
Oedipus and those like him, would say that his Fate was determined by the Gods, but the Gods only understand that their subjects who suffer from Hubris, will react based on the surface appearance of things; they will not delve deeper into Truths & Principles - the realm of the Gods, the Hubristic will instead attempt to set themselves up as Gods, daring to think that what is apparent to their eyes is all that needs to be known and is in their direct control. The Gods don't determine men's Fate, they just know the results that must follow from those who place appearances above, and in opposition to, the deeper truths of Life.
The scars upon his foot? psh-posh, they're just scars, signifying nothing, implying nothing, able to reveal no Truths of any importance whatsoever - facts are merely facts, and are integrated no further into life than that which their appearance seems to show. In the same fashion, Oedipus "answered" the riddle of the Sphinx:
Had he given it a just a little further consideration, he might have noted that while,
"To Laius, King of Thebes, an oracle foretold that the child born to him by his queen Jocasta would slay his father and wed his mother. So when in time a son was born the infant’s feet were riveted together and he was left to die on Mount Cithaeron. But a shepherd found the babe and tended him, and delivered him to another shepherd who took him to his master, the King of Corinth. Polybus being childless adopted the boy, who grew up believing that he was indeed the King’s son. Afterwards doubting his parentage he inquired of the Delphic god and heard himself the word declared before to Laius. Wherefore he fled from what he deemed his father’s house and in his flight he encountered and unwillingly slew his father Laius. Arriving at Thebes he answered the riddle of the Sphinx and the grateful Thebans made their deliverer king. So he reigned in the room of Laius, and espoused the widowed queen. Children were born to them and Thebes prospered under his rule, but again a grievous plague fell upon the city. Again the oracle was consulted and it bade them purge themselves of blood-guiltiness. Oedipus denounces the crime of which he is unaware, and undertakes to track out the criminal. Step by step it is brought home to him that he is the man. The closing scene reveals Jocasta slain by her own hand and Oedipus blinded by his own act and praying for death or exile."The story of Oedipus the King is, I think, the story of discovering the Law of unintended consequences, resulting from acting on superficial conclusions, unsupported by deeper understanding.
Oedipus is a man who is unbalanced between mind and body. Neglectful of inconvenient facts which may impede his desires (Oedipus is nominally lame from the pins hammered into his ankles as a baby being exposed, one of the meanings of Oedipus is swollenfoot), prideful of his ability to perform intellectual tricks (the sphinx's riddle), and disdainful of any Deeper Truths which are not readily apparent to his eye.
He is new to the city of Thebes, and without regard to any deeper knowledge, sets out to cure all of it's troubles, simply by way of his glib mental tricks. As the apparent immediate prosperity due to his solution to the Sphinx's riddle begins to wear away, and a papered over evil begins to reassert itself, he again glibly declares that he himself, will solve all the problems once again, setting off another even more devastating round of unintended consequences.
The play is his discovery, and we the audience discover it too, that closer consideration slowly reveals deeper layers of truth. In the Play we discover ever more deeper Truths about Oedipus and his relation to his family, friends and body politic, of the unstoppable momentum of Underlying Principled Truths, and of man's inability and folly in trying to bury them with sophistry. Truths, which had he taken the care to move more slowly and inquiringly, reveal what happens to a man who tries to soar by way of mental gymnastics alone, separated from, and disregarding the wider truths of Nature, the earth and body politic about him. Taking each truth as if it were an isolated fact in a sophistic syllogism, which may be sound within its own internal logic chopping, and has the Hubris to deem that soundness as valid for ignoring all the outlying facts of reality:
All Grass is vegetation,Reality in this case is ignored, but still, and in spite of that ignorance, Grass persists in growing only in shades of Green. Yet the narrow form of the syllogism (even though the rules are not kept) are offered up as proof of validity, blatantly ignoring Aristotle's rule that the syllogism must integrate with the facts of reality surrounding it, just as much as it must with the rules of the syllogism, and its internal logic as well.
Some vegetation is Pink,
Grass is Pink.
He is at root someone trying desperately to deny and ignore who he is, in order to avoid becoming what he fears - and the inevitable result of not facing or trying to understand your most dreaded fears, and instead Acting, based on only the most superficial of sophistic deductions - attempting to use unprincipled, pragmatic, sophistry to override the course of Truth and Principle, results in bringing the dreaded fear into realization (the law of unintended consequences).
One of the key questions that Sophocles nearly begs you to ask of his play, is why did Oedipus not investigate the rumors of his 'fate' further? Because, as with most pretentious elites - then and now -, whose heads are stuffed with facts devoid of an integrating Education, he had gleaned a superficial level of understanding, and deeming that Sound, felt no need to look any further, to learn any more of the relevant facts or principles involved - just dove headlong after his immediate conclusion, and so immediately brought about the first of the fears he sought to avoid, killing his true father. Was the carriage'd man who roughly shoved him aside a bad man, or a man having a bad day? Oedipus didn't even turn to look at the carriage he no doubt must have heard approaching him from behind, much less step aside for it to pass, and on being accosted as the carriage barreled down upon him, he felt no need to question or consider - he only knew that in that moment he immediately felt offended and pained, surely they must be thugs and brigands - who else would wish him to step aside from the track he was walking on? and that was all the sufficient cause and knowledge he felt he needed to justify killing the men he had never met before.
Did he ever investigate the reason for his deformity? Did he ever ask of his 'parents' (whom here stand in for, and signify a somewhat deeper level of underlying truths and principles) the reason for the scars upon his ankles? Did he ever delve any deeper into the mystery of his 'Fate'? Had he been someone who had paid attention, and sought deeper wisdom, he would have discovered the truth - and in so doing, Possibly might have changed his stars, but Teiresias knew that the Gods & Fate knew their subject, knew that he would plunge in disregarding all custom, disdainful of any and all deeper meanings in favor of a glib solution, and so guaranteed -- his Tragic fate.
Oedipus and those like him, would say that his Fate was determined by the Gods, but the Gods only understand that their subjects who suffer from Hubris, will react based on the surface appearance of things; they will not delve deeper into Truths & Principles - the realm of the Gods, the Hubristic will instead attempt to set themselves up as Gods, daring to think that what is apparent to their eyes is all that needs to be known and is in their direct control. The Gods don't determine men's Fate, they just know the results that must follow from those who place appearances above, and in opposition to, the deeper truths of Life.
The scars upon his foot? psh-posh, they're just scars, signifying nothing, implying nothing, able to reveal no Truths of any importance whatsoever - facts are merely facts, and are integrated no further into life than that which their appearance seems to show. In the same fashion, Oedipus "answered" the riddle of the Sphinx:
"What goes on four legs in the morning, two in the afternoon, and three in the evening"Oedipus' answer was,
"Man. As a child he crawls on all fours, as an adult he walks upright on two, and as an old man, he hobbles with a cane".But as with his other solutions, it is a superficial answer, and entirely misses the deeper truth.
Had he given it a just a little further consideration, he might have noted that while,
- Babies do crawl on all fours, and in doing so they are 'in touch' with themselves they see and do what they do - if a lady is fat, they ask why, not realizing the question may be rude.Oedipus, in solving the riddle of the Sphinx so swiftly and glibly and sweeping up all glory to himself as a result, unintentionally gave the Sphinx the last laugh, as this man, this leader, armed with easy answers, rushes out to 'fix' a number of things with his solutions, and brings about a doom that will destroy himself, his family, and his community.
- As a fresh-faced adult, they are standing upright, their eyes looking up and away, less in touch with the earth, with reality, easily stepping into holes with their gaze raised high, or overlooks the dangers before them.
- As an old man, while he does walk with a cane, his eyes are cast lower, still seeing far, but also now taking in the ground upon which he carefully walks, and he walks with the aid of a wooden cane, signifying a support fashioned from nature, by his mind, to connect him more steadily with, and so better supported by, the earth - he is not just old, but Wise.
29 comments:
Hubris isn't ancient Greek. Hamartia is.
https://www.academia.edu/9641257/Reconsidering_hamartia_as_sin_in_1_Corinthians
Anonymous said "Hubris isn't ancient Greek. Hamartia is."
Both words come to us from ancient Greek, and convey different failings, Hubris with 'pride, insolence, outrage' and the fall such behavior leads to, and Hamartia, as your link describes, with "to miss the mark", err, as in sin (and a perpetual fall).
What point were you wanting to make?
That's not what hubris meant from a 5th century ancient Greek perspective. Don't use it as a lens for understanding Oedipus's actions.
Also, he's an elite?
Also, the whole point of that article was to etymologically argue the translation "sin" isn't exactly accurate... Critical reading skills are important!
This is a solid example of what happens when you apply what you think you know to cultural/textual case studies. You develop something that contains a decent amount of meaning for yourself, but something no closer to any actual truth any completely lacking in crucial context.
Your application of hubris is a modern development; applying it to a Greek case study will only yield flawed results. Oedipus is a good king, a figure from whom to learn -- but he makes a crucial mistake in upsetting fate.
*and
anonymous said "Also, the whole point of that article was to..."
The whole point of your article was whatever point you're trying to make, which has little to do with the point that I was making. The point that I was making is this,
"...The play is his discovery, and we the audience discover it too, that closer consideration slowly reveals deeper layers of truth. In the Play we discover ever more deeper Truths about Oedipus and his relation to his family, friends and body politic, of the unstoppable momentum of Underlying Principled Truths, and of man's inability and folly in trying to bury them with sophistry. Truths, which had he taken the care to move more slowly and inquiringly, reveal what happens to a man who tries to soar by way of mental gymnastics alone, separated from, and disregarding the wider truths of Nature, the earth and body politic about him. Taking each truth as if it were an isolated fact in a sophistic syllogism, which may be sound within its own internal logic chopping, and has the Hubris to deem that soundness as valid for ignoring all the outlying facts of reality..."
, if you know of a word that is more appropriate to this than how we use Hubris today (and, BTW, this wasn't a post on the language of Ancient Greek, or the etymology of it, but what the those Greeks can tell us about ourselves today), than Hubris, please, do share (pretty sure Hamartia isn't it though).
"...Don't use it as a lens for understanding..."
Ah, you begin to reveal yourself.
"Oedipus is a good king" is what I would expect of someone who'd say "Critical reading skills are important!", I can only say, knowing something of the 'Critical Thinking' innovation of the 1940's, that I'm very comfortable with not being thought of as a practitioner of that... 'skill'.
"Also, he's an elite?"
You do like to pick out particular words, don't you? I'm beginning to get the impression that you might be the type of person who'd say "Forest?! I see no forest here, only trees!"
I'm pretty sure it's hamartia. But you have no interest in learning something you didn't "know" before...
Forgive me. I have a strong emphasis on language and proper words being used. You applying a commonly misused lens of understanding (the modern, not ancient Greek conception of "hubris") instead of an appropriate fifth-century tragic term ("hamartia") demonstrates you have no understanding of ancient Greek culture or theory. Yet you insist you know best in applying it...
Also, Tiresias is a seer, not the Oracle at Delphi. Pardon me for latching onto obviously incorrect words. Sometimes it's a good skill to realize some unintelligent designer has placed the wrong trees in the wrong forest.
Also, "critical reading" skills are different than critical thinking/theory... But, based on the trend you're demonstrating here (of conflating what you think you know with something tangentially related), I wouldn't expect you to have the critical reading skills to understand that.
A bit of advice for the "blogodidact": it's not "learning" if you close your mind off to facts you've predetermined you don't agree with. You could've just learned something from someone with a greater understanding of ancient Greek language and culture than you -- instead, you retreated to what you thought you knew.
This isn't a blog about trying to learn, it's a blog showing off how smart you think you are...
"BTW, this wasn't a post on the language of Ancient Greek, or the etymology of it, but what the those Greeks can tell us about ourselves today"
FTFY: "What can the Greeks tell us about ourselves if I look at a version of a famous tale with incorrect details thrown in, and if I look at that tale through a completely anachronistic, non-Greek lens?"
The answer is nothing. Or at least nothing worthwhile.
"The whole point of your article was whatever point you're trying to make, which has little to do with the point that I was making." I shared that article because an ancient Greek scholar and etymologist argued in it just how much more appropriate "hamartia," a term with a meaning actually used by fifth-century playwrights, is actually a much better lens for this type of "observation."
"Hubris" as a fifth-century concept meant simply "outrage," not "excessive pride or arrogance." "Hamartia," explains Sophocles's perspective: Oedipus was a good king, doing his best; but he made a crucial mistake in killing his father (essentially the greatest Greek mistake). Read his character that way, not as an "elite" son-of-a-shepherd and a leftist who thinks he's too smart for his own good, and instead as a good Greek trying his hardest and still being unable to overcome fates/the gods. THAT is the Oedipus lesson. Learn something.
If you read any of St. Augustine's writings, this Greek concept of erring becomes especially familiar.
aninnymouse said "... But you have no interest in learning something you didn't "know" before..."
First, I am no scholar of Ancient Greek - at all - I asked you what point you were trying to make, and you instead told me what point I was trying to make (there's probably a word for that too). The point I was making was not about sin, or hamartia, but the sense in which Hubris is used today, as it applies to what we can learned from Sophocles play today - if you can add to that, clarify my point, or show me the error in what I said, please - I'm pleased to engage and be shown the error of my ways.
However, your comments so far are simply giving a live demonstration of what we mean by Hubris today.
Maybe you could work on that.
aninnymouse said "...Also, Tiresias is a seer, not the Oracle at Delphi. .."
A point you are welcome to take up with F. Storr, who presumably provided the 'argument' (the opening italicized section above) when he translated the play. Of course he's been dead a century or so, but... best of luck.
aninnymouse sniveled "..."critical reading" skills are different than critical thinking/theory..."
Ya know, there's a certain shallowness given away by those who pronounce answers to questions they didn't bother asking, that you seem to excel at. Sad. And BTW, Duh.
aninnymouse squealed "...If you read any of St. Augustine's writin..."
Ah, the wisdumb of the scholar who has no need of asking, but only to assume what must be.
Where does Storr say Tiresias is the Oracle at Delphi?
"I asked you what point you were trying to make, and you instead told me what point I was trying to make."
Ahem:
I shared that article because an ancient Greek scholar and etymologist argued in it just how much more appropriate "hamartia," a term with a meaning actually used by fifth-century playwrights, is actually a much better lens for this type of "observation."
"Hubris" as a fifth-century concept meant simply "outrage," not "excessive pride or arrogance." "Hamartia," explains Sophocles's perspective: Oedipus was a good king, doing his best; but he made a crucial mistake in killing his father (essentially the greatest Greek mistake). Read his character that way, not as an "elite" son-of-a-shepherd and a leftist who thinks he's too smart for his own good, and instead as a good Greek trying his hardest and still being unable to overcome fates/the gods. THAT is the Oedipus lesson. Learn something.
"I am no scholar of ancient Greek."
", if you know of a word that is more appropriate to this than how we use Hubris today...than Hubris, please, do share (pretty sure Hamartia isn't it though)"
You admit to knowing nothing after repeatedly doubling down on what you think you know instead of learning from me? Maybe you could work on that.
"However, your comments so far are simply giving a live demonstration of what we mean by Hubris today."
One last comment, because I'm realizing it may theoretically be impossible to teach that which has no self-awareness. You have no ability to see how far you have to go...
First off, read more closely. Storr never writes that Tiresias is the Oracle at Delphi (because he's not an incorrect idiot). You mistakenly entered "Tiresias" as a parenthetical. Practice those necessary reading comprehension skills.
Secondly: "hubris" is not an ancient Greek concept. Applying this anachronism to ancient Greek culture in an attempt to learn what "those Greeks can tell us about ourselves today" is inherently methodologically flawed. You can't and won't learn what the Greeks can teach us by using a concept as we understand it today. You're only learning what YOU (or the people who streamlined this non-Greek understanding of "hubris") can teach us about ourselves today, because you're misapplying a concept as you understand it rather than the Greeks understood it. "Hamartia," a term used by Sophocles and with a meaning understood and embraced by him, is a much better Greek lens for learning what those Greeks can teach us today. Read how Oedipus tried his best but made a crucial mistake. That is the Greek Oedipus lesson. (And I would know. I AM an ancient Greek scholar.)
Learn something.
Nice ad-hominems, by the way! Calling me "anninymouse" instead of arguing against my points really establishes your intellectual dominance.
Also, ugh:
"aninnymouse sniveled "..."critical reading" skills are different than critical thinking/theory..."
Ya know, there's a certain shallowness given away by those who pronounce answers to questions they didn't bother asking, that you seem to excel at. Sad. And BTW, Duh."
(I'm not gonna bother with proper quotation mark formatting, because you didn't.)
I raised this "answer to a question [I] didn't bother to ask" because you denounced me as a proponent of "critical thinking" for telling you to actually comprehend what you read. You're very good at making false-equivalencies. That wasn't a "BTW, Duh" when you made the mistake the first time.
God this is impossible. You're unable to see yourself as anything but infallibly correct at every moment.
"I choose to be a 'blogodidact' so I never have to reconcile with how wrong I am." - Chevy Astro
"The point I was making was not about sin, or hamartia, but the sense in which Hubris is used today, as it applies to what we can learned from Sophocles play today - if you can add to that, clarify my point, or show me the error in what I said, please - I'm pleased to engage and be shown the error of my ways."
I thought you said "this wasn't a post on the language of Ancient Greek, or the etymology of it, but what the those Greeks can tell us about ourselves today." Did you change your mind about the intention of this 16-year-old post yesterday?
If you're out to learn what the Greeks can teach out about ourselves today, a fifth-century Greek concept (hamartia) paired with a fifth-century case study ("Oedipus the King"), can teach us many things. For instance, that, sometimes, even though we try our best, circumstances (somewhat or completely) out of our control can undermine our best intentions. Or that sometimes we make honest mistakes that need to be owned up to (like misrepresenting Tiresias as the Oracle at Delphi in your annotations and then blaming the problem on Storr instead of practicing even the smallest amount of personal accountability, for instance].
If you're ACTUALLY out to simply apply the anachronistic concept of hubris to Sophocles (which has been done, like, a million times before), I guess I ask: why? It's a misguided pursuit which hides actually meaningful, actually GREEK suggestions for guidance.
So, there: there's my addition, my clarification of your error (again). Hopefully you can digest it this time. Bye, As(s)tro!
"Also, ugh:" Poor Shallow Zimmerman, no one else to play with?
BTW, in case you hadn't noticed, this is a blog post, my third one, copied over from the initial MSN site, riddled with spelling errors (ugh), and was simply my reaction on re-reading it, as I said above "...The story of Oedipus the King is, I think...", was nothing like me saying stating: 'The TRUTH ABOUT OEDIPUS!". Had you come along at the time then, or now, I'm happy to be disagreed with, and even corrected. But trolled by a fool like you? Not so much.
I will say that I am puzzled about the '[Tieresias]' though. It was 16 years ago, but as far as I recall I copy/pasted it from Gutenberg - it's misspelled and not there at all on the site today, but it served no purpose in my post, and I can't imagine inserting it. Still, unless some cache shows differently, the simplest answer is that the edit's mine - but if it annoys you, that's reward enough for me.
shallow struggled mightily and burped "... can teach us many things. For instance, that, sometimes, even though we try our best, circumstances (somewhat or completely) out of our control can undermine our best intentions..."
As you said, that's been said many times before, and if that's all you, a drama teacher, can get out of it... I pity your poor students.
FWIW, the odd '[Tieresias]' value has been removed.
16 years later, I'll add a response prompted by the troll's comments. The straight read of Oedipus, is that "...a good Greek trying his hardest and still being unable to overcome fates/the gods...", which then as now, seems to me to be an obvious observation that is true enough as far as it goes... but one which looks no further than the obvious. 16 years ago, after I'd just re-read the Oedipus plays again, it occurred to me that that conclusion, which I'd reached myself when I'd read it for the first time when I was... probably about 16... didn't go far enough. And so with that in mind, I took a closer look at each of Oedipus's decisions that Sophocles presents to us, and tried tilting it this way and that in the light, to see what else there might be there to see, and put it out into the blogosphere in hopes that someone else would add something to it.
As to the obvious point about Oedipus, he is clearly an intelligent man trying to do what he thinks should be done, no matter the consequences, and that is admirable. What else we can see of him though, is that he doesn't really know himself, and doesn't even know his own name until that point where he gouges his eyes out.
And so looking just a little further than the obvious, what you begin to notice is that everything that we're told by Sophocles that Oedipus has done, is done by him on the spot, a snap decision on the most obviously 'right' assessment of a smart person. The question to ask though, it seemed (and still seems) to me, is that as obviously clever as his decisions might be, were those oh-so smart decisions wise decisions to make?
It seems... er... obvious... that killing the man in the carriage rolling up behind him, was, on second thought, not the best action to have taken. Right? And checking that against being told that he'd kill his father and marry his mother, was it wise of him to conclude that he knew all that he needed to know to make a sound decision about this message from the gods?
Isn't one of the most well known characteristics of messages from the Gods, that they often turn out to have double meanings and usually turn out to be foretelling a fate that is the opposite of what they seemed to mean on first glance? 'King Croesus', anyone?
Oedipus, smart as he was, was not yet wise; he was clever, impetuous, hot headed, and as in the examples already stated in the post 16yrs ago, he reaped the ill effects of his too-quick answers, which as I originally put it:
"...story of discovering the Law of unintended consequences, resulting from acting on superficial conclusions, unsupported by deeper understanding."
If anyone would like to show me the error in that, or add to that, I'd be even more thrilled to consider that now, than I would have...16yrs ago.
I would add to that though, that Oedipus is clearly someone who is willing to face the truth, no matter how painful it might be, and in Oedipus at Colona, he has developed in his blindness, and reliance upon his daughter to guide him, a (somewhat) better control over his tongue and actions, and in the end he is received by the God.
Blogger size break:
(Cont)
As to Prof Troll's comments about Hamartia. 16 yrs ago, I wasn't aware that Hubris is used differently in popular use, than was originally meant by the term, or that Hamartia could be a better term to use. I have since heard both, but as a quick glance will show it a common use, even by those who are experts on Ancient Greek, such as Bruce S. Thornton in 'Plagues of the mind' pg. 45
"...Oedipus is the mythic paradigm of the dangers of intellectual hubris, for he is the riddle-solver par excellence, the one who knows the answer to a profound question - What is a human being? - yet who is still arrogantly ignorant of another, perhaps even more important question - Who am I?..."
, I still feel no need to search out old posts to update, and brush the troll's point away without much concern - my purpose was not to expound upon the meaning of 'Hubris', but what meaning I could find in the play that lay a bit beneath the obvious.
What is a concern though, or should be to anyone unfortunate enough to pay for their students to attend a drama class from the marxist Prof 'shallow' Shadow Zimmerman, is that his default tic, on hearing what he deems to be 'wrong think', is to frantically sling comment after comment (he totaled up 90 replies to me on another page) blathering on about how wrong they are, as with "THAT is the Oedipus lesson. Learn something." and "... showing off how smart you think you are...", which seems more about showing how masterful he is, than from having any interest in helping others to come to a better understanding of what could and should be a chance to teach a meaningful lesson.
Sad.
For those laughing along at home, prof troll has frantically spammed me another six examples of him smelling his own farts and complaining about how this post has *somehow* grown to "...30 comments and one week later...", and of course whining about how I 'shat on' him.
On the bright side he's slowly discovering what 'comment moderation' means.
Gotta love good comedy. Sadly though, this person is a college professor.
Fortunately for me, I'm not here for his amusement, or to help him sniff himself, or to give him an outlet that he has so far shown himself incapable of contributing anything worthwhile to.
Should he manage to send in something of interest, I'll pass it on through, but until then I'll enjoy the fact that he doesn't seem to have noticed the wee verse above this comment box:
Fools will be suffered and battered with glee,
Trolls will be fed and booted for free,
at least until they become more boring than fun,
or if they peg my disgust-o-meter,
at which point they'll be deleted,
unsung.
Post a Comment