CONCLUSION

Nietzsche rightly recognizes in Oedipus at Colonus a representative of religious anti-rationalism, but he errs in concluding that Sophocles deems Oedipus's rejection of reason to be “wise” (1967, 42, 68—9).

As we have seen, Sophocles' play seeks to demonstrate that the religious anti-rationalism exemplified by Oedipus is self-contradictory and, more importantly, self-destructive. The play reveals that Oedipus's piety is ultimately based, not on his “blind” or pure rejection of reason, nor on his ostensibly rational, but actually self-contradictory, argument that he deserves the reward of immortality, but rather on his longing for immortality and, above all, on his anger at his mortality. It is this pious anger — which leads Oedipus to harm both himself and his loved ones — that is criticized most emphatically in the play by Theseus, the true hero of the play, the representative of political rationalism and humane wisdom, the man who embodies “the humane greatness of Athens at its

which Creon seemingly appeals at 939—49. For Oedipus entrusts to Theseus alone the secret of where his sacred tomb, which will protect Athens, will lie, and Theseus alone will be able to hand down this secret to his hand-picked successor (1518-34). See 1629-57, 1754-67.

³⁸ Bowra (1944, 334—5), Knox (1964, 153), and Winnington-Ingram (1980, 273—4) praise Oedipus over Theseus. Although Wilson and Mills praise Theseus highly, they also suggest that Oedipus is ultimately superior because he is a “true prophet” (Wilson 1997, 171—2; see 178—9) and “associated with divinity” (Mills 1997, 166; see 168). But Reinhardt suggests that Theseus may be the true hero of the play (1979, 208). best” (Knox 1964, 152),^{^[72]} but a figure whom Nietzsche’s analysis of the play never even mentions.

Yet, while the play is critical of Oedipus, it is not at all dismissive of him, as is indicated by the fact that Theseus himself expresses compassion for Oedipus and does all that he can to help him. Oedipus is a grandly tragic figure, whose tremendous perseverance and towering strength of soul we naturally admire.

He inspires pity without any admixture of contempt, for his flaws are rooted in our common humanity. We naturally pity Oedipus, since his hope for immortality is rooted in a longing and an anger that seem common to our nature as mortal beings who are aware of our mortality. We naturally fear suffering what Oedipus suffers, since we naturally share the passions and the mortal condition that cause his suffering. In pondering the tragic fate of Oedipus, we see all too clearly our own nature and our own condition.

The fact that the play does not simply dismiss Oedipus’s religious anti-rationalism is precisely what distinguishes Sophocles’ analysis of religious passion from that of Enlightenment liberalism. For while modern political rationalism has tended to believe that religious zeal will naturally fade as we human beings become freer to act in accordance with our nature and more enlightened concerning our natural condition, Sophocles shows that religious zeal is rooted in such enduring traits of human nature as our awareness of our mortality, our hope for immortality, and our angry refusal to accept our mortality. Accordingly, Sophocles advocates a sober and cautious political rationalism, one that recognizes and seeks to address the dangers of religious passion to political life, but also recognizes the permanence of religious passion within political life. Living as we do at a time when religious

passion poses a growing challenge to political rationalism, and when the heirs of modern political rationalism seem caught off guard by that challenge, the Oedipus at Colonus is especially timely. For through it, Sophocles warns against both the dangers of blind religious passion and the dangers of an excessively hopeful political rationalism that overestimates the power of reason and underestimates the power of religion in the human heart.

<< | >>

↑

Source: Ahrensdorf P.J.. Greek Tragedy and Political Philosophy: Rationalism and Religion in Sophocles Theban Plays.New York, "Cambridge University Press", 2009, -206 p.. 2009

CONCLUSION

More on the topic CONCLUSION: