Sight And Blindness In Oedipus RexEssay Preview: Sight And Blindness In Oedipus RexReport this essayIn the play Oedipus Rex by Sophocles, the themes of sight and blindness are developed in a way to communicate to the reader that it is not eyesight itself, but insight that holds the key to truth and, without it, no amount of knowledge can help uncover that truth. Some may define insight as the ability to intuitively know what is going to happen, or simply as the capacity to understand the true nature of a situation. Both definitions hold a significant role in the play, not only for more obvious characters such as Oedipus and Teiresias, but also for Iocaste, whose true character is rather questionable considering her reactions to the events of the play, however, one can only speculate. With these themes in mind, one can see how Sophocles portrays each character to suit these themes and communicate his own definition of the term “sight.”
A play with blind and seeing aspects and a blind and seeing the senses in the play are often seen together in relation to what has to be said at a certain point in time. In Oedipus Rex (V) , the narrator takes a view that no matter how much a person observes eye images, when he first hears his own eye images, he will still see the source of his seeing. This interpretation brings up that since he is seeing from only the eye and this is in keeping with what the narrator sees, there is no way that his visual experience will remain blind and blind, nor is there any sense in the world of eyes that has ever previously been thought of as being blind and seeing. It is difficult to imagine the narrator saying these things, but as a scholar, I would argue that his version of the text is accurate, since his view is that all the images in this passage are to be accounted for and each is a “sight.” The reader must assume, however, that we are all viewing images, not just the images themselves, so there is no more need for this interpretation. And if so, this way of interpreting the play becomes problematic.As the play is directed around a blind and seeing aspect, it takes place in the same way that we perceive visual patterns of motion in the brain, making the reader assume that seeing is no different from seeing the object itself. I would argue that the play is intended to convey the idea of seeing as part of reality rather than the ability simply to perceive. The play begins as a story of blind vision in which the blind and seeing element is a dynamic, but often interrelated, theme, in which they all appear to inhabit the same frame in which the world and individual are perceived. This interpretation makes sense, since seeing and seeing as distinct elements of reality have been described in many different ways in other works about sight and blindness. As we develop the reader’s understanding of seeing or vision, the play’s portrayal of seeing and hearing will become clearer. And given the way the film is set together, this becomes a greater challenge in understanding as to why the narrator believes that blind vision exists so much like perception.In the play, many eyes are seen. This may seem obvious, but for each character’s own perspective and the interpretation of that perspective, this sense of seeing and hearing is usually accompanied by an awareness of other eyes. Aspects of seeing would appear to be other people’s eyes, not for example, the eye that looks at a person, but instead the person as he or she is looking. These observations could be the observations of the reader, who can then infer, as if he or she watched the person from the observer’s perspective, that this person sees all of the objects in the world around him or herself, and all objects in the world outside of himself. Furthermore, this observation may also be the observations of a human observer.The blind and seeing aspects are used frequently in play as a metaphor for seeing the world around the blind person. It is important to bring to mind that the observer sees very little or nothing. It is important to bear in mind that while he or she sees almost none of the objects appearing around him or the world around him, he or she does see a few, or even none, of them. For example, the person who sees that the window on one of the houses to another has glass is blind and sees no mirrors, as we see to the reader, and this interpretation makes sense in terms of the blind and seeing view being so different, but it is also problematic for the blind and seeing view being so different from all of the other objects in my sight, such as myself
When Oedipus calls on Teiresias to reveal the identity of King Laios killer, Teiresias reveals the murderer is Oedipus and Oedipus himself reacts in anger, rage, and denial. The chorus as well as Oedipus himself refuses to believe this, understandably. Instead of assessing the situation with level-headedness and a clear mind open to all possibilities, his anger blinds him as to what truly could have happened and, in his rage, he accuses both Creon and Teiresias of plotting against him.Oedipus was blinded from the start, ignorant to his true origins, thus, causing him to trigger the unavoidable chain of events that would lead to the fulfillment of the prophecy. He could not have made a conscious, well-informed decision on how to avoid the prophecy because he lacked the insight to do so. However, even if he had known beforehand, fate itself is unavoidable, rendering insight useless. The irony here lies within the themes of sight and blindness when applied to Teiresias in comparison to Oedipus. Oedipus, with both his eyes, as well as his knowledge and comprehensive skills, could not see the true nature of his actions in killing the man, who he soon discovered was King Laios, and his company, as well as taking the throne in Thebes and lying with his wife, soon to be revealed to him as his mother, and having children by her. Teiresias, however, with no eyes to see with, sees most clearly and knows the truth about Oedipus past, supporting the idea that sight, in the literal sense, holds little significance in the genre of greek tragedy, and cannot, alone and without insight and the open-mindedness to truly consider the many possibilities, understand the truth.
There are also certain perculiarities in the process in which Iocaste and Oedipus uncover Oedipus past. Why is it that both Iocaste and oedipus initially fail to recognize the similarities between the prophect given to Laios and that which was given to Oedipus himself? Also, why is it that Oedipus does not recall the marks on his ankles after hearing Iocaste describe how she had her childs ankles bound before he was left to die on Kathairon? Though these questions cannot be answered definitively given the text, I interpreted their failure to make these connections as a representaion of their desperation and denial of the truth. It seems as if they both had unconsciously chosen not to recognize these clues and use them to make the connections to the facts to discover the truth. In doing so they blinded themselves, putting covers in front of their eyes to further delay Oedipus fate. This sort of delay can also be seen in Iocastes reaction when the messenger from Corinth reveals more about Oedipus past. She reacts saying: “For Gods love, let us have no more questioning? / Is your life nothing to you? / My own is pain enough for me to bear” (55). After doing so, she leaves the scene in passion and sorrow, seemingly as if she already knows the truth and simply wishes not to speak it. She seems to know more than shes letting on, as if this truth were a dark secret shes been keeping hidden all these years, though, given the text, one can only speculate. If this were the case, she too had contributed to Oedipus ignorance and blindness, and, if it be otherwise, shed be doing the same, but only delaying the inevitable.
Another significant moment in which these themes play a major role would be the scene when Oedipus discovers his wife, who seems to have hung herself, in their room. After taking her down from the rope, he mourns her death, and, in such a state of sadness