He had the never ending blackness and the physical pain he had caused on himself as reminder and as punishment. Oedipus' physical blindness was just as painful as his blindness to the truth. Both were intertwined in each other. Jocasta's blindness was different then Oedipus'. She knew about the prophecy, but she thought Oedipus was dead.
By the end of the play Oedipus learns the true nature of things - his past is revealed to him. He sees the truth to clearly and cannot accept his fate, so in an act of cowardice he blinds himself, which in reality doesn't change Oedipus's fate at all. From what I researched, I came to the conclusion that Oedipus didn't want to accept the situation the way he saw it, so he decided he didn't want to see at all. He is incapable of escaping the destiny that the Gods have set out for him. his way of coping with the horrifying truth was to poke himself blind.
This action causes him to lose everyone that he loves. He even refuses to listen to the wise words of the blind prophet who tells him, "a good man yields when he knows his course is wrong. The only crime is pride"( Line 35). His arrogance leads him to believe that he is the only one with wisdom and his love for power causes him to choose what will keep him in power over what is right. Arrogance is a vise that people deal with on a daily basis.
These are qualities of human nature which were brought out of a god because of his want for more power. In Oedipus, we see different type of struggle for power. It is not so much power over a kingdom or a people, but power over his own fate. Oedipus starts the play with the reputation of being a compassionate ruler. He is also approached by the blind prophet and given news that causes him to turn angry and even insult the blind prophet.
There is an arrogant kind of sarcasm to this argument. He shows that indeed others do not know anything at all but they think they do. In fact this is what made the accusers mad enough in the first place to put Socrates on trial. To Socrates this is wicked because those who are wise know that they know nothing. “To fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not, to think one knows what one does not know (Apology 29).” This goes back to his statements that he is only wise in that he knows that he knows nothing, while others profess knowledge about things they know nothing about.
In William Faulkner’s novel As I Lay Dying, Darl Bundren is labeled as nothing more than another obstacle on the Bundren’s journey, as they are forced to deal with Darl’s insanity and mental instability, when in fact the exact opposite could be argued that Darl is actually one of the sanest members of the family. Darl’s assumed madness is a direct result of the betrayal of his family; the same ones who accuse Darl of his self-induced insanity, pushing him to a breaking point via their own twisted ulterior motives and instability, eventually causing him to perform the same acts that in turn label him as the insane character he is presumed to be. Darl is not insane, rather just misfortunate to be placed in a family such as his and in the situation taking place throughout the novel. He is misfortunate in the sense that his over-analytical mind and personality conflict with the interests of the rest of his family, who don’t seem to know or are capable of understanding Darl. Through his own narrative, Darl is seen as very observant and perceptual.
At the beginning of the story, the narrator sits on several assumptions regarding the blind man. He views him as someone who is lacking a significant part of life (vision), and therefore will have a certain set of attributes. The narrator even views his love life as being empty and without meaning, due to the fact that he could not gaze upon his wife. What is occurring here is the first portion of this theorized meaning within the story; the lack of awareness of another person’s perspective. The sharp, quick presumptions humans make on those that they do not understand usually fall on faulty and baseless beliefs.
Cain related back to hell and all that is evil, so immediately one may think that Grendel is this evil character due to his heritage. However, he is a misunderstood character who was not given the benefit of the doubt. In the eyes of man, Grendel is an evil monster banished from man’s society, who is now forced to live and see the world in a different perspective. Grendel attempted to fit into man’s world. Though, man’s world is a harsh and judgmental society.
Probably the most interesting thing about this interchange is Teiresias's attitude towards the art of prophecy. Oedipus has good reason to be angry at him. King Oedipus has in front of him a man with the knowledge needed to save Thebes, but Teiresias won't reveal the necessary information. Instead he tells Oedipus that there's no point in revealing the truth, because everything that's going to happen is just going to happen anyway. Really?
This was suggested as naïve optimism and unrealistic by anti-transcendentalists. They though that people who desired complete individualism would give rise to the worst aspects of human nature. Hawthorne in his story shows that relying on one’s self is a type of evil. An initial reading may show this tale to be about the idea that sin is in all men’s hearts and that there is a universal desire to keep it hidden. However much we may want others to be transparent, it is impossible because everyone wears a veil.