Oedipus Vs Socrates

Despite existing in the realms of myth and historical record, both the tragic King Oedipus, and persecuted philosopher Socrates expose key aspects of ancient Greek society when their plights are examined. When placed on trial for crimes he didn’t commit by people he referred to as his ‘old accusers’, Socrates not only provided an impotent defense, but even works against his own interests. Oedipus is confronted with his own destiny after fleeing a prophecy of murder and incest, and through investigating a crime unrelated in his eyes, he learns the truth. Socrates worked against his known enemies among the rich and powerful in the name of philosophy because he saw it as just; Oedipus worked against the forces of fate in the name truth for the

Socrates’ trial was conducted by men, who are could have been persuaded to vote to save him, in the same way that they were persuaded to vote for his destruction. Yet Oedipus’ agent of calamity is his own destiny, an entity faceless and deaf, against which he has no defense or way to escape his fate. The evidence of the hand of destiny is found in the same passage that Oedipus’ tragic myopia is shown. Oedipus explains the steps he took to avoid fulfilling the prophecy after he fled from Corinth, “And as I journeyed I came to the place where, as you say, the king met with his death… I became angry and struck the coachman who was pushing me… And then I killed them all (109-110.)” One of the men he killed was the king Laius fulfilling the first part of the prophecy. But it is not as if Oedipus sought out his father for the sake of murdering him, in fact the murder may seem justified, he was hit, so he hit back, but this is what he is punished for. Had he not been on the road in flight from Corinth, he would not of been assaulted, so he would not have (rightly) retaliated. Oedipus’ only crime is leaving Corinth, something Oedipus saw as completely necessary, he committed the murder because he did what was right. Since he had no intention of doing wrong, especially something as heinous as killing his father and sleeping with his mother, there

“Even if you acquitted me now,… you cannot avoid executing me, for if I should be acquitted, your sons would practice the teachings of Socrates and all be thoroughly corrupted… and as long as I draw breath and am able, I shall not cease to practice philosophy (34.)” In saying this, we see that Socrates has already accepted the possibility that he would be acquitted on the terms that he stops practicing philosophy. But rather than capitalizing on this possible point of sympathy, Socrates makes it clear that it will not happen, but adds on to that by saying that he would rather die. Socrates is an accomplished speaker, which he recognizes at the beginning of the speech, when he assures the jurors that he will only speak what comes to mind, and has no speech prepared “…I would agree that I am an orator… (22.)”, yet in his chance defend himself, he does nothing to prove his innocence, and fittingly, he is