The Oedipal Loop: Substance Abusers vs. "Royalty"
The psychologies of substance abuse and of royalty may seem on one level to be worlds apart. One is, after all, literally on top of things by law, decree, and birth-the other only gets "to the top" in an illusory world created by reliance on the drug of choice. But upon closer examination, especially in the play Oedipus the King, the mindset of the substance abuser and that of a misguided monarch turn out to be similar in an almost uncanny number of ways.
It has been said that Oedipus is above all a "victim." He is a victim of fate; of the machinations of people around him; of a curse. Similarly, many people in the web of substance abuse consider themselves "victims" of their addiction. However, this sort of view of both King and addict is something of an oversimplification. In both cases, the sense of victimization springs from a distorted reality: the addict begins with a grandiose belief that he/she is responsible for "saving the world." As one contemporary psychologist puts it:
[. . . ]you're a victim "of the first water" then. You're responsible for the behavior of everybody in the world; and they're not doing it. You're playing the ultimate victim role then. (http://www.marshasummers.com/innerman/victim.htm)
Oedipus echoes that belief over and over in his proclamations; in fact, he not only assumes grandiosity of influence, he asserts...
Humbert is awaiting trial for murder, and act of his own free will. No one will argue that Humbert could have made other choices in this case. However, it can be argued whether his sudden coronary in the end was a twist of bad fate, or of good fate. On one hand, it ended his life, on the other; it saved him from life in prison. Lolita's death in
His theory suggests that the ideas themselves take on lives of their own. However, if they are, in their inception, human, doesn't the person who first created them, who first thought them up have the free will to do so? Thus, the arguments made by both Dennett (2007) and the textbook are sound ones, but the idea of free will still has a fighting chance up against these clearly
Oedipus Contribute to His Own Fate Oedipus -- fate vs. free will Ancient Greek philosophy promotes the idea that fate plays an important role in people's lives and that it would be pointless for individuals to attempt to change it. Fate takes on an ironic turn in the Ancient Greek tragedy Oedipus the King, with the central character being fated to encounter both success and misery in his life before it
This makes people superstitious, but, in the same time, it makes them combine fate with free will as they act out of their own free will with the intention to alter fate. Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" describes how superstitious people can contribute to altering fate. Superstitious people are disadvantaged because of their beliefs and because of their absurd theories. Also, the fact that they are superstitious prevents them from acting
Ekstrom 121) The greatest strength of the concept of free will is that it allows evil deeds to be explained as poor conceptions of a weak human mind. The individual abilty to learn and become a greater agent of responsibility seeks a concept of free will to explain how this can be done and with good reason. The individual has no reason to express learning and to grow from human ideas
Therefore, they are compelled to choose what they do in order to instantiate God's foreordainment of history. It wouldn't seem to make sense, therefore, for the person to attempt to change their circumstances or to fight against fate. Affliction, tragedy and evil would be just what God wishes to throw at an individual, who could scarcely escape its occurrence. This seems to suggest a response of futility toward life
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now