Oedipus Part II

First of all, I must say that I love the irony in the fact that Oedipus becomes blind at the end, after ridiculing the prophet for the same thing. As far as fate goes, I honestly believe that  Oedipus nor his parents could change his fate.  I think that he was doomed from the beginning and fate wasn’t the question in the story, but when the fate would play out. Even if parents did not abandon him and raised him and taught him who his parents are and that it is wrong to kill your father and sleep with your mother, it would have happened eventually. Maybe it wouldn’t play out the same way it did in the play, but it would have definitely happened one way or another, because that was simply his fate.  On his way of avoiding his tragic fate, he killed the man who later turned out to be his father, which proves that even though he tried to avoid what was meant to happen, he made it happen even faster than it should have maybe. I wonder what would have happened if he was never found on the hill or if he let the king go and did not kill him?

I love the little twist within the play, when Oedipus freaks out about killing a man on the street and then finds out that his father actually died from natural causes. That’s when he relaxes and realizes that he did not kill his father. However, only a few seconds later he also finds out that the man he thought was his father is NOT his real father, and his minute of happiness is gone. Could you imagine finding everything out about your life and your family in just a matter of minutes or hours and finding out that what you thought was your life and who you thought your family was if far from the actual truth? Wow!! It really sucks to be Oedipus!

As far as Oedipus’ tragic flaws go, I think his tragic flaws were his curiosity. If he wasn’t as hungry for knowledge as he was, maybe he would have let go of finding out the truth and even though it would bother him that he doesn’t know, at least he would have been saved of the awful truth and poking out his eyes. However, how many people would actually not want to find out something when they are told that they shouldn’t know the truth. It’s like telling someone you can go everywhere in this house but the room upstairs, you don’t want to know what in there.  Would you actually take that advice or would it bug you that you are forbidden to enter the mysterious room? I would like to say that I would take the advice, but most likely human nature would make me go into the room to see what is going on. The same goes for Oedipus. Even though he was told not to fish for the truth, I think that is what sparked his curiosity even more which lead him to an even bigger disaster.

Oedipus the King

I must say that Oedipus is officially one of my favorite readings we have had this far ( even though I already read it in high school), not only because it wasn’t hard to read and understand, but also because it is nothing like we have read in this class.

The first part of Oedipus went by extremely fast and jumped straight to the point which I liked because too much detailing in our other readings bored me to death.  One thing we were told to pay attention to in this story is fate and how it plays out throughout the text. We were told to pay attention to fate and how it plays out in this story.  The question we all want to know the answer to is can you change your fate or destiny? First of all I do not understand the difference between the two and I always used the two interchangeably. As far as the question about destiny goes, I am not sure if you can change your fate. I love people who say “ only you can control your life and only you choose the path you want to take, “ but what if the path you choose is the one that was already chosen for you anyways? I guess the question is, is there a path already chosen for you before you were born and no matter what you try to do or what path you would like to, you will still somehow end up going down the path.

 I always wanted to go to a physic before because I always wondered about my future. However, the thing that freaks me out is what if I am told what my future will be and I try to change is and just because I tried to change it I will end up with the future the physic told me I will have. I guess this proves that I am not too sure if you can change fate. I believe that our path is already chosen for us and we can write out our own life and choose our own path, but I think that our decisions are guided by the way our original fate was written and that at the end of the day we will still end up at the place we were meant to be from the beginning.

Since I already read this play in high school, I know what will happen and that’s why I am ALMOST convinced that we cannot change our fate and that what was meant to be will happen one way or another, no matter how hard we try to stop it.

The Matrix

After  we were done watching the Matrix, it reminded me exactly why I did not want to watch it in a first place when it first came out, due to the many deep layers of symbolism, meanings and confusion.  I know we were supposed to “read” the movie and not just watch it, but as I was watching it and listening to Morpheus speak about The Matrix, what it is and how it works, all I could think about was “Daoism, Daoism, Daoism”. Everything he said sounded like exactly something from one of the Daoism readings we had. Although I did not understand Daoism that much, I still found some connections between The Matrix and Daoism, beginning with the idea of “how do you define real”. I loved the scene when Neo went to visit the oracle and when the little kid told him that the spoon isn’t actually bending because there is no spoon. If this is also something that Daoism reflects, I don’t believe in it one bit. I mean it would be great if I could look at things and bend them how I want to and move objects around the room however I wanted to, but so far that’s been impossible because I actually think that the spoon I eat with exists. If the spoon doesn’t exist yet it is there and we can see it and feel it and use it, does that mean that we as people do not exist either? We can be touched, smelled and seen, yet if we are just like that spoon that doesn’t exist, we as people aren’t any more real than that spoon. I guess what I am trying to say is that the question “how do you define real” is fair, but a better question is how do you differentiate between “real and unreal”?  What makes certain things real and certain things unreal?

One thing I remember from the movie is when Morpheus explained that even though Neo knows something, he can’t explain it and that he can only show him the door and Neo has to walk through it alone. This reminded me of Daoism because we spent a lot of time trying to figure out what Daoism really is, and then we came to the conclusion that Daoism goes with the flow and that it can’t really be explained in just one way. The movie is all about things being real and un- real, which reflects many themes in Daoism.

I enjoyed watching this movie and never knew that it reflected many parts of Daoism and it would be really creepy if the world really became an artificial reality called The Matrix in the next century or two.

The Perspectives of Daoism

The Daoism was a really boring read for me mostly because I am not a huge fan of philosophical and ethical ideas and I don’t like when a story makes me think (and I definitely had to think after I was done with Daoism).  Thinking about life, values and principles of nature is sometimes what we need in order to understand how and why we are living the way we are, but reading about that for about 30 pages almost put me to sleep because there was too much going on. The Daoism was kind of interesting because it’s amazing to realize that these people actually think in a “ go with the flow” way and they simply take things in life as they are. The most interesting read to me was the Dao De Jing, just because it was written in a rhythmic language which made it very easy to follow and understand. One of my favorite lines was “Truthful words are not beautiful; beautiful words are not truthful” (Dao De Jing, 1019). In other words, truth hurts because it can get ugly and hurtful sometimes, and beautiful words may not be truthful always. Although he stated the obvious, I still like this line because it was one of the few that I actually understood and could relate to.

Although the Dao De Jing perspective wasn’t as bad to read and understand, I really fell into a confusion state once I began reading Zhuangzi. The intro was great and so were the stories shared that eventually reflected a lesson learned or a certain principle of life. However, the topics and questions were thrown all over the place and I could not keep up with the questions or the answers.  One line left me so puzzled that I ended up laughing because I have never read anything as confusing as that. “There is a not yet beginning to be a not yet beginning to be a beginning” (Zhuangzi, 1028). WHAT? I tried to think outside the box and tried to get the message behind this saying, but in the end I ended up being even more confused. I liked the story about Lady Li becoming Duke Hsien’s consort, because it reminded me of a number of questions I have about death as well. I like this part because he explained that Lady Li was so sad for being held captive and taken to the state of Chin, however, when she saw what a good life she lived she wondered why she was ever depressed in a first place. So then he questions himself about the dead people and whether or not they wonder why they have longed for life. In other words how does he know if the dead are really miserable and missing the life they had while they were alive, or are they happy as dead and now wondering why they were ever scared of dying in a first place (the same way Lady Li was scared and sad about being taken to the state of Chin). This caught my attention because I ask myself random questions like that all the time and unfortunately I never get an answer, because asking about something so unknown and mysterious such as death is impossible to get an answer for unless you believe in spirits or you can talk to them (which would be a whole different blog entry).

Overall, I understand the significance of the Daoism perspectives because these stories might not have much meaning to someone who does not follow these philosophies. However, they are significant to many people out there who follow Daoism.

Sir Gawain and the Green Knight

When I first started reading Sir Gawain and the Green Knight, I had to go back a few times and read the same lines over and over again until I finally understood what the author was saying. This poem was the hardest one to read for me, because this is the only text we have read so far that I had to go back and read the same thing a few times. With that being said, I am so grateful for Sparknotes !

I love the detailed descriptions of everything in the poem, because it helped me visualize the scenes such as the feast and when the Green Knight stormed in. This was one of my favorite scenes just because it was so unexpected and random. I had no idea that one of the main characters of the poem would be introduced by storming in and challenging the king. Anyways, who just storms in, interrupts a party and without much explanation asks to play a game? This reminded me of a typical SAW movie where Billy the Puppet pops up on the screen and whispers “ I want to play a game.”  Not only was this scene random, but did anybody catch how awesome this knight is? He gets his head chopped off, and without any show of pain or hurt, reaches down and somehow finds his head, that is still talking by the way, and then rides off on his horse headless.  I don’t know about you, but I think that is awesome!

I would say that Gawain is a hero.  He came out of nowhere and decided to take on the Green Knight’s challenge instead of the King, and then he still kept his part of the deal and a year later went to look for the Green Knight. Once he returned home, even though he fulfilled his part of the deal, he didn’t feel like a hero but instead felt ashamed for lying and being a sinner, which is a true hero to me.  This makes me wonder, what would have happened if Gawain did not go looking for the Green Knight?  Would the Green Knight come and look for Gawain? However, if that was the case, the poem would have a completely different storyline, because by Gawain going out to search for the Green Castle, he stopped at a castle on the way and was welcomed by a host, who later turned out to be the Green Knight. Therefore, I think if Gawain never went looking for the Green Knight, the poem wouldn’t be as interesting.

I loved the twist in poem when Gawain realizes that the Green Knight is the king who welcomed him into his castle, let him stay and play a game with him. What was the point the Green Knight wanted to make? Since Gawain was struck just once for lying about the gift he got from the host’s wife, did the Green Knight want to teach him a lesson about lying? In that case, what would have happened if Gawain did not lie? Another thing  that is still bothering me is how did the Green Knight get his head back on?

Overall, I had somewhat of a hard time understanding some parts, but at the end of the poem I wished that it went on for a little longer because it was an interesting and an unpredictable read.

Sakuntala and the Ring of Recollection.

While reading the Sakuntala and the Ring of Recollection, I was confused with the intro of the play because I did not see the point of the conversation between the director and the actress or how they are related to the rest of the story. Now that we have covered it in class, I understand the purpose of that act. However, that scene made me wonder if the actress talking to the director was the woman that took on Sakuntala’s role later on in the play or is she completely irrelevant?


I like the language or at least the translation of the play, which was way easier to read and understand than the language in Gilgamesh. One of my favorite scenes in the play was when the king was jealous (or at least I think he was), of the bee that was attacking Sakuntala. I thought that it was sweet of him to admire how close the bee is to Sakuntala and to wish that he could be in the same position as the bee.

Another scene that caught my eye and reminded me of many books or movies I have seen, is when the poor fisherman gets caught and brought into the police station for questioning. It seems as if in every other movie or a book, a poor innocent man gets accused of a crime, and I found this a little funny. I like the irony in the scene, once they find out that the fisherman and the ring incident actually helped them all by making the king happy and reminding him of his wife again. Maybe the fisherman scene was used for somewhat of a comic relief.

I didn’t like the use of so many unnecessary names, because when they would refer to a name I would think it’s somebody important and then I would find out it’s only a maid or somebody totally irrelevant (not that maids aren’t important, but I saw no need for their names to be used in the play). Maybe I am missing an important theme of the play. I guess this is a typical storyline where an almighty king falls in love, gets the girl of his dreams, has to overcome a challenge, somebody gets heartbroken, yet at the end everybody lives happily ever after. Why does it sound like I have heard this before? It sounds familiar because I have seen and read something similar to this so many times, and I feel like the only thing missing was a scene where Sakuntala kisses a frog and it turns into King Dusyanta.

Overall, the play was easy to follow if you ignored the variety of unnecessary names and although the plotline was not as original, it was still interesting and attention-grabbing. By the way, I think this would make a great Bollywood movie that would have hilarious scenes such as the creepy King Dusyanta spying on Sakuntala from behind the bushes.

Is Gilgamesh really a hero?

While I was reading the Epic of Gilgamesh I was starting to wonder if Gilgamesh was truly a hero. There may be many definitions of a hero, but to me, a hero is someone who is courageous, fearless and is willing to use his/her powers in order to help others. At the beginning of the poem Gilgamesh is described as being a very powerful, arrogant king who uses his authority and powers in negative ways such as raping his noble’s soon to be wives. This does not represent any type of hero to me because he used his powers in a negative way and molested and bullied his people.


One thing that caught my attention was how Gilgamesh was so concerned with fame. Right before the battle with Humbaba he mentioned that if he defeats him, he would get guaranteed fame. I think that a true hero should not be going into battles and taking on risky challenges just for fame and a good reputation. I believe that a true hero is humane and courageous, and is willing to sacrifice his/her life in order to protects his people or save someone’s life, regardless of the fame. A true hero puts himself in dangerous situations in order to serve as a protector or a defender, and not in order to become famous or earn good a reputation, which seemed to be the only thing on Gilgamesh’s mind. I also remember Gilgamesh getting scared when Humbaba threatened him in the forest, and if it wasn’t Enkidu, he would have probably been dead. Isn’t a hero supposed to be fearless?

Although Gilgamesh’s grieving over Enkidu’s death was obvious, I think that he was more upset because he realized that the same faith awaits him, which is very selfish. He went to visit Utnapishtim, in order to ask him questions about death and although he went through a challenging journey, I still could not find a hero in him. A real hero shouldn’t be afraid of doing what it takes in order to save something or somebody, even if it takes his/her life away. To me, a real hero would be willing to sacrifice his own life in order to save someone else. One of the reasons I believe that Gilgamesh was as brave as he was in his battles was because he thought he was immortal. However, if he knew that one day death awaits him too, I don’t think he would have been as courageous or would have taken on as many life-threatening challenges.

I respect Gilgamesh for his bravery in battles and for taking on journeys that no man would ever take, however I think that it takes way more than challenging journeys in order to be a hero. A real hero would never harass other people and misuse his/her powers. A real hero would never take on challenges in order to show off his/her strengths and hope to get recognition and fame in return. Finally, I think that a true hero is not afraid of dying or sacrificing his/her life for something valuable in return. Gilgamesh is nothing but a selfish guy who uses his strength in order to fool people about how brave he is.