Autonomy in Hamlet and Oedipus

In life, people are guided by moral beliefs and principles. Whether their beliefs are good or bad, their decisions are based on them. In Plato “The Crito”, Socrates emphasizes his moral beliefs and principles when he decides not to escape from prison. Although Socrates had the opportunity to escape his death sentence, he chose not to do so because he had a moral obligation to commit a sacrifice.

Although Oedipus’s fate was already determined, he is not just a mere puppet of the gods, meaning he can control his own life. Before full knowledge of his unintentional incest, he tries to flee town in order to avoid marrying his mother. By doing this he is taking matters

In the Crito, Socrates believes that breaking the laws of the city harms all of society. The consequences of escaping the city outweigh the benefits for it puts his family, his friends, and himself in danger. He believes in a personal morality that one must live a good and just life, and not just any life. If Socrates breaks the law then he would not be acting justly,

Not knowing he was the murderer, Oedipus had now cursed himself. "Whoever he is, a lone man unknown in his crime or one among many, let that man drag out his life in agony, step by painful step – I curse myself as well… if by any chance he proves to be an intimate of our house, here at my hearth, with my full knowledge, may the curse I just called down on him strike me!" (606)

In Oedipus the King by Sophocles, Oedipus is responsible for the tragedy of his downfall. Oedipus is presented with a series of choices throughout the play, and his arrogant and stubborn nature push him to impulsively make the wrong decisions, the decisions that ultimately lead him to his downfall. While Oedipus and those around him consider "fate" the source of Oedipus' problems, Oedipus' decisions show the audience that it is he who is responsible.

In our world today, fate and free will remains the biggest mystery of all; is everything we do controlled or do we have the freedom of choice? In the story "Oedipus the King" by Sophocles, the author uses the idea of fate and free will to explain the struggle of Oedipus's life. Fate and free will is explained as; fate is controlled by an outside supernatural force, and there is no way of controlling it. Free will is when each of us is responsible and controls all aspects of our own life. The author of "Oedipus the King" uses ironic devices to convey a tragic attitude toward the struggle of fate and free will.

He also explains to Crito that the citizen is bound to the laws like a child is bound to a parent, and so to go against the laws would be like striking a parent. Rather than simply break the laws and escape, Socrates should try to persuade the laws to let him go. These laws present the citizen's duty to them in the form of a kind of social contract. By choosing to live in Athens, a citizen is endorsing the laws, and is willing to follower by them. Therefore, if he was to break from prison now, having so consistently validated the social contract, he would be making himself an outlaw who would not be welcome in any other civilized state for the rest of his life. Furthermore when he dies, he will be harshly judged in the underworld for behaving unjustly toward his city's laws. In this way, Socrates chooses not to attempt escape but he dies as a martyr, not for himself, but for his city and its system of justice.

This paper is the rough draft version. There are grammatical errors and other such errors in it.

In “Oedipus,” Sophocles writes about a man who is hunted down by his cruel fate, and whose life is ruined in attempt to run away from it. The ancient Greek perspective reflects on the matter of the story and how the god’s highly influence the lives of humans. This viewpoint basically shows the unbounded power the Greek gods have; by being the gods of destiny, and leaving man at a helpless position. Fate plays a massive role in the lives of humans and as was believed by the ancient Greeks, their lives were simply directed by a decision of gods and goddesses. Oedipus knew his fate set by a curse cast on him; however, even when being aware it is impossible to escape fate, he still attempted to run away from it. As the play progresses Oedipus begins to understand the unbearable truth as he states “I’ve called down a dreadful curse upon myself,” followed by a response “I simply didn’t know!” (1103). It is the will of the man to realize what is inevitable and what choice is. In the Ancient Greece, Gods were praised and worshiped and any command stated by them is the undecided future. Oedipus acting as a blinded man who did not know of such fact led him to his fate and ironically is what later led him to blind himself (Gould). When Oedipus stabs his eyes out with the

Oedipus’ destiny or fate had little to do with his downfall. The prophet told Oedipus that he was destined to kill his father and marry his mother, but the prophet never mentioned Oedipus murdering Laius on the highway, or solving the Sphinx’s riddle, or accepting and taking advantage of his kingship. Oedipus blinding himself was an example of free will, “for he removed from…[Jocasta’s] garment the golden brooches which she was wearing…” by choice “…and struck the sockets of his own eyes..” blinding himself Free will and hubris, according to the ancient Greeks, were separate from unavoidable fate. Oedipus’s fate was to kill his father and marry his mother. However, everything else, including fleeing Corinth, solving the Sphinx’s riddle, and finally pursuing the truth about his life, was by his own free will, a direct result of his ego and pride. Oedipus Rex is a story about the dangers of pride and arrogance, one teaching about the importance of humility and tolerance, and one stressing about the control of hubris, a potentially perilous quality that destroyed Oedipus’s vision and his life.

Sophocles’ play, Oedipus the King, has risen many questions concerning the main character and whether or not he acts on free will or if his future is predestined by the gods. I am going to test the theory that although Oedipus believes he is acting on his own free will, he is in fact a victim of the gods. I will analyze several different sources that discuss fate and human agency in Oedipus the King and then proceed to build my original argument on the archaic debate.

Oedipus was cursed, indirectly, due to the sins of his father Laius after a crime he committed; the cursed stated that his unborn son would kill him. Laius was blinded and possessed by the curse since he immediately demonstrated selfishness, as well as a lack of affection and love for his newborn son. This is because he “commanded that the child be killed. He pierced the three-day-old infant’s ankles and gave him to a shepherd, with orders to expose him on Mount Cithaeron, outside Thebes” (Sophocles 28). Even before Oedipus was born, his fate will be filled sealed with tragedy; it was indeed inevitable to prevent.

Hamlet is the typical kind of son almost every father and mother would want: intelligent, loving, caring, strong and loyal. Yet, some scholars believe that he is just another emotional character, defying our eyes to think that his acts are innocent, when his real purpose is to take his mother for himself. This gives scholars, like Ernest Jones, the impression that Hamlet’s actions were encouraged by an Oedipus complex, characterized by feelings of intense rivalry with a father figure in regards to a mother’s spousal affection. Even though there are lines that can be interpreted to show that Hamlet may have had such a desire for his mother, when these lines are examined in the full context of the

"Oedipus the King" is a tragic play showing a shift from the belief of fate to freedom of choice. Therefore, Oedipus the king is a great example of those who run from fate ends up fulfilling their fate

29d). Unlike his fellows Athenians, Socrates cares little “whether a person is beautiful, or rich, or famous in any other way that most people admire” (Sym. 216e). Unwilling to compromise his own values, Socrates continues to challenge those around him, even at the risk of losing his own life. In Plato’s Crito, Socrates likens himself to Achilles who, insistent on avenging Patroclus’ death, “belittled death and danger, fearing much more to live as a bad man and not to avenge his friends” (Apo. 28c). Socrates holds little regard for his wellbeing when the threat of being unfaithful to his beliefs is at hand.