Symbolizing Sight: Knowledge vs Ignorance in Oedipus the King Oedipus, the character of focus within Sophocles’ play Oedipus the King, is subject to the greatest of ironies due to the play’s motif of sight: through metaphorical sightlessness, which is a case of ignorance, he condemns himself and uses literal blindness as his own punishment. Having been characterized within the literary work as possessing both knowledge and ignorance of his upbringing, metaphorical and literal elements of sight are constantly used to shed light on Oedipus’s experiences throughout the duration of the play. Mostly metaphorical in its usage within the literary work, the characters regularly utilize the terms of “sight” and “blindness” in order to address levels of knowledge or lack thereof as they gradually unravel the story’s underlying truth. The character of Oedipus is a man considered to have great insight and intelligence due to his success in protecting the city of Thebes from the threat of the sphinx by solving its riddle. This makes the situation even more ironic when the audience learns that Oedipus has been ignorant of the true reasons for his placement as king.
It is lack of knowledge that is Oedipus downfall. Oedipus is not aware that he has married and had children with his biological mother. He is in the dark to the fact that he himself has killed his own father. Oedipus is definite intelligent. It was he that correctly answered the Sphinx’s riddle.
In Maeterlinck’s The Blind, the theme of blindness represents a sense of insecure and fear; uncertainty of the surrounding and future; irrationality and the lack of knowledge. Due to the loss of their vision and the absence of their guide, the blinds are being depicted as lost and helpless. Throughout the play, their blindness affects them strongly and it is also the cause of the result of their strenuous and desperate situation. In contrast, blindness enhances the image of the blind grandfather in The Intruder. The grandfather is being depicted as the wisest person within his family because he could “see” or “predicts” some events that his family members who have normal vision could not.
“She is a part of a past that cannot be recovered or changed by anything I can do now. My father always told me that it was my birth that robbed her of her sanity. So as a child I had to carry the weight of my mother's madness as something that was my own doing.” (Davies 148) Paul had believed his whole life that Mary's insanity was caused by his birth, and once the truth came out, Paul was no longer guilty. The lift of guilt allowed him to feel again, something he was not able to do for a very long time. After the truth is learned about Mary
He uses the analogy of two parallel lines, which according to the mathematician Euclid, can never meet. He says that his mind can comprehend this concept because he has a “Euclidian earthly mind”. If someone were to tell him that two parallel lines could meet in infinity, even if he sees this himself, his mind would still not be able to accept the theory. Ivan tells his brother that even though he is willing to accept God, he cannot accept the world created by God. To further explain why he cannot accept this world, Ivan gives examples of the brutality found in the world, particularly the brutality of innocent children.
Comment on the way Frances is presented. In your answer refer to: - Narrative voice - Bronte’s language choices Frances Earnshaw, Hindley’s wife, who he “brought” with him “a wife”. No one knew “what she was, and where she was born” as Mr Hindley “never informed us”. The verb ‘brought’ implies that Frances had no choice of marrying him and is like a baggage. Mr Hindley would have made the decision of marrying her or not.
The text goes on to say, “My idea of blindness came from the movies. In the movies the blind moved slow and never laughed” (Carver 100). This being thought by the husband puts across that blind people can’t be happy because they can’t see what is happening around them. The husband also claims that it is “creepy” that Robert doesn’t wear dark glasses. The husband didn’t like having to look at Robert’s eyes without glasses because there was “too much white in the iris, for one thing, and the pupils seemed to move around in the sockets without his knowing it or being able to stop it” (Carver 103).
Young S. Yoon Mrs. Schulz English IB 11 30 May, 2012 No Ideological Conclusion Ideology splits us, but anger and delusion unite us. Many people seek out for meaning of their life and the world, but each finds conflicting answers. The conflicting ideologies imply that it is humanly impossible to find the inherent meaning because of chaotic and irrational nature of universe and thus they cause dissension among people. However, frustration in defining supposed meaning of life and tendency to adhere to each one’s own fabricated ideology is universally shared. This principle that people are unable to find the real inherent meaning or value in life is called absurdism.
Descarte also teached philosophy to queen Christina of Sweden 2. Enumerate at least two fields of studies or realities which Descartes doubted and provide reasons why he doubted them In meditations 1 he doubts our senses because he explains that “I have noticed that the senses are sometimes deceptive; and it is a mark of prudence never to place our complete trust in those who have deceived us even once.” He also explains that in his dreams he has been deceived. In meditations 2 he doubts himself because he explains that there’s no sky, no earth, no minds, no bodies therefore I too do not exist and about there is a deceiver or other who is supremely powerful who is always deceiving him, and then if that person is deceiving him he does not exist. This leads to the subject about “I am, I exist”. 3.