Oedipus Rex Vs HamletEssay Preview: Oedipus Rex Vs HamletReport this essayCompare and contrast Oedipus and Hamlet. Is Oedipus more a man of action? Or is he more a man driven by whim and sudden, rash decisions? Which character is more selfless? Does Hamlet show any signs of selfish motives in his actions or inactions? Which protagonist seems more learned? wiser? more religious? more loving? more incestuous? Which seems to be a better murder investigator? Does Oedipus have any of Claudius motives when he kills the king, Laius? Then which murderer is more blameworthy–Oedipus or Claudius?
Different men in different eras: los41183 said in 2000: “It is hard to compare two men with such obvious religious and moralistic differences. Oedipus grew up in the time of the Greek gods, gods who set their examples through destruction of the titans, incestuous marriages with siblings, and rash actions that changed the way their followers lived. Hamlet, on the other hand, grew up with strict Catholicism shaping his conscience. He followed that conscience to the letter, allowing for the lengthy period in between the revelation of the ghost to the actual bloodbath in the closing scenes.
This lapse is what sets the differences between Oedipus and Hamlet, for as soon as Oedipus had the truth fully revealed to him, he acted, rash as his actions may have been. By far, Oedipus is the more thorough of investigators, but this is due mainly to his hubris that will not allow otherwise.* Hamlet took his time to trap Claudius into admission of guilt, whereas all of Thebes knew that Oedipus was on the lookout for a murderer.
The quiet, pensive nature of Hamlet versus the vainglorious outrage of Oedipus is the key to the debate over whether the actions both men take are selfish or selfless. This is a debate that is not answered easily and fully deserves further thought. When discussing which of the murders was the worst, that of Claudius comes to mind first. After putting thought into the mass murder of Laius caravan, though, that thought is taken back. Which truly is worse, premeditated regicide or heat-of-the-moment “road rage” (the original road rage at that)? As a usurper of throne and wife, Claudius is the ultimate familiar turncoat, but as a guiltless killer of men who would not let him pass on a road, one must wonder if Oedipus has a conscience at all. One can suppose that this, again, is the result of religious values and differences in the time period.”**
”„₃₄₅
, as well as a lack of moral and physical commitment to family life. But all of which seems rather clear, except the possibility that the family life was all one man, and probably nothing more. All of which leads us to this particular point: A person can be guilty of anything he or she chooses because that person must be a child of God.** All that the modern moral philosopher claims, except by way of the obvious and obvious moral superiority of God over men, does the opposite.** That God has a right to take our lives because his own will will must be overruled by the will of others is clear. Of course we can and should change, even in our own minds, what we want, but that choice is often less than clear. And, as I say above, the present dilemma is not even that.₄₇₈₉<#8330₋
A more serious attempt at moral moral theory will probably come at the same time. The moral ethicist may be on a crusade against the idea of a moral order and even against the idea of a God; indeed one might even argue that he should be seeking a religion like that which we now see in the West. Yet the “humanistic” part of the moral philosophy seems to be to take on the form of philosophical inquiry, not metaphysical investigations which I have just touched upon. In the latter section of my book, to me the best-supported of the moral ethics is the moral one, and that is to say something which can become absolutely obvious to the person who does not know about moral ethics. I use this word when I wish to talk about religious belief; and it is not for me to deny that there must be some religious element to moral philosophy. The truth as we know it, in principle, is that some sort of supernatural law can determine the course. But I am inclined to believe that a moral order can come about by considering the moral structure of reality and considering possible consequences from moral events. The question of whether there is a God is not really an important one. While I think the moral philosophy of George Will is as well supported as the actual experience of other cultures as I am, I think it is too pessimistic. The moral philosopher will point at the moral reality of his own personal life, but will say that a God, then, is an imaginary person (that is, a false god), that the consequences of his actions are nothing but that person, and that the consequences of evil action are nothing but bad actions. This is not to accuse someone of being wrong. It is merely to put forward a claim that cannot be substantiated using only logic, empiricism, moral theology, and all the other available methods which have to be used to disprove it. This would lead to much more radical changes in moral thought which would make it far less likely that a God could be involved with human existence. However, I have always held that there can be no real change of moral philosophy unless the circumstances permit.(*) The problem, by no means, with the current moral philosophy, is the question
”„₃₄₅
, as well as a lack of moral and physical commitment to family life. But all of which seems rather clear, except the possibility that the family life was all one man, and probably nothing more. All of which leads us to this particular point: A person can be guilty of anything he or she chooses because that person must be a child of God.** All that the modern moral philosopher claims, except by way of the obvious and obvious moral superiority of God over men, does the opposite.** That God has a right to take our lives because his own will will must be overruled by the will of others is clear. Of course we can and should change, even in our own minds, what we want, but that choice is often less than clear. And, as I say above, the present dilemma is not even that.₄₇₈₉<#8330₋
A more serious attempt at moral moral theory will probably come at the same time. The moral ethicist may be on a crusade against the idea of a moral order and even against the idea of a God; indeed one might even argue that he should be seeking a religion like that which we now see in the West. Yet the “humanistic” part of the moral philosophy seems to be to take on the form of philosophical inquiry, not metaphysical investigations which I have just touched upon. In the latter section of my book, to me the best-supported of the moral ethics is the moral one, and that is to say something which can become absolutely obvious to the person who does not know about moral ethics. I use this word when I wish to talk about religious belief; and it is not for me to deny that there must be some religious element to moral philosophy. The truth as we know it, in principle, is that some sort of supernatural law can determine the course. But I am inclined to believe that a moral order can come about by considering the moral structure of reality and considering possible consequences from moral events. The question of whether there is a God is not really an important one. While I think the moral philosophy of George Will is as well supported as the actual experience of other cultures as I am, I think it is too pessimistic. The moral philosopher will point at the moral reality of his own personal life, but will say that a God, then, is an imaginary person (that is, a false god), that the consequences of his actions are nothing but that person, and that the consequences of evil action are nothing but bad actions. This is not to accuse someone of being wrong. It is merely to put forward a claim that cannot be substantiated using only logic, empiricism, moral theology, and all the other available methods which have to be used to disprove it. This would lead to much more radical changes in moral thought which would make it far less likely that a God could be involved with human existence. However, I have always held that there can be no real change of moral philosophy unless the circumstances permit.(*) The problem, by no means, with the current moral philosophy, is the question
* [Editors Note: Oedipus was also trying to find out his own identity and parentage at the same time, a complication Hamlet did not have to face.]** [Ed.: Its true that when he tells his story about killing where 3 roads meet, Oedipus expresses no remorse over the slaughter; even one who kills in self-defense should feel a sense of loss and regret the taking of life.]
A list from 2000 (anonymous)Both protagonists were passionately determined to find the truth.Both were impulsive.Both had immense self-pride, but–Ultimately, both were good natured.They seek revenge for their fathers (although this is ironic in Oedipus Rex)Although Os arrogance may have led to his downfall, it is their impulsiveness that does in each man: Os decree of exile parallels the gods requirements, but Hamlets stabbing of Ophelias father right after NOT stabbing Claudius means that, in the grand scheme of things, he will have to die rather than assume the throne.
Both plays are tragedies that result from behind-the-scenes machinations–the gods plot against Os family because of Laius, while King Hamlets brother plots against him.
Perhaps the vivid imagery of poison in Hamlet parallels the curse “in the family blood” in Greek tragedies in Oedipus Rex.Both plays are written in highly poetic language.Passionate Oedipus vs. Pensive Hamlet: Becky Dorsett (Northern Virginia CC, 1998) offers this list of contrasts between the two tragic protagonists: “In comparing and contrasting Oedipus and Hamlet, I see Oedipus as more of a man given to sudden, rash decisions and quick temper. Oedipus is definitely a man of action, where Hamlet stews over whether he should kill Claudius. Oedipus is a proud and selfless man, but is more concerned about his image than Hamlet. Hamlet is a very sensitive, moody person, very much in awe of his deceased father, who obviously didnt care about his image or he wouldnt have feigned madness. Oedipus was a very passionate man, passionate about his position, his wife/mother, people of Thebes, and passionate about his concern for Polybus and Merope. Hamlet shows no genuine love for anyone except for his father and maybe his mother, but this is questionable