The King of Oedipus is a play written by the ancient Greek writer Sophocles and performed around 431 BC. This great play, based on Greek myths and legends about Oedipus killing his father and marrying his mother, shows the conflict between man and fate.
Where was Oedipus wrong
Everyone should be familiar with the story of King Oedipus, and someone once asked the fate of Oedipus: "Is Oedipus's fault that he did not believe that he was the one who killed his father and married his mother?" ”
On this question, I very much agree with the answer of one netizen, who said: "I think Oedipus's fault may be some kind of conceited imprudent." ”
Oedipus's conceit stems from his reason and knowledge, and he has been trying to escape God's will ever since he learned that the oracle might kill his father and marry his mother, but it was precisely because he had left the kingdom of Corinth by his own cleverness that he narrowly met and killed his own father.
Later, he solved the mystery of the Sphinx and became the king of the city of Thebes before marrying his own mother. Solving the Sphinx mystery was the pinnacle of life for Oedipus, making him think that he was the smartest person ever since.
Therefore, from this point of view, Oedipus highlights the finiteness of human reason and knowledge, and every time he makes a decision that he thinks is correct, he is actually taking one more step towards the abyss of fate.
Tragic spirit and pessimism
Speaking of ancient Greek tragedies, some people will ask, why is the tragedy of ancient Greece much higher than the evaluation of comedy? Is it because the mourning of tragedy is deeper than the satire of comedy, closer to the essence of existence?
If I speak in general terms, I fully accept this judgment. We can think of it this way that comedy mobilizes people's senses, and tragedy touches people's thoughts; comedy depicts the appearance of life, and tragedy reveals the truth of life; comedy is the accident of life, and tragedy is the necessity of life.
But we still don't say what tragedy is, and when we describe it this way, it's easy to equate the spirit of tragedy with pessimism.
Nietzsche told a story from ancient Greek mythology in the book The Birth of Tragedy:
King Midas wanted to know the truth of life, so he went to Theronus teacher Silemis and asked him a question: What is the best and most wonderful thing for man? Unexpectedly, Silemis's answer turned out to be like this: Poor floating life, why are you forcing me to say something you had better not hear? The best thing is that you can't get it at all, which is not to be born, not to exist, to become nothing. But there's one more good thing for you – die right away.
This sentence conveys a Schopenhauer-esque pessimism, not the tragic spirit that Nietzsche advocated.
The tragic spirit lies in unity
In The World as Will and Appearance, Schopenhauer quotes a very similar phrase:
"Man's greatest sin is that he was born."
Schopenhauer explained that the true meaning of tragedy is a profound realization that the protagonist of the tragedy is not to atone for his personal sin, but to the original sin, that is, the "sin of survival itself.".
Schopenhauer said that once people realize this, they have a complete understanding of the nature of the world, which brings not only "pure heart", but also "renunciation of life", up to "the abandonment of the whole will to life".
But Nietzsche is different, he is not going to accept a life of abandonment. He believes that the true spirit of tragedy lies precisely in the fact that, after realizing the horror and absurdity of existence, neither give up nor overcome, but experience a "metaphysical comfort" in tragedy.
This metaphysical comfort will make us deeply appreciate "a very strong sense of unity", the unity of man and himself, the unity between man, and the unity of man and nature.
Divisions caused by the principle of individuation
Here I would like to say my own understanding that Nietzsche was clearly opposed to the principle of "individuation" of the Spirit of the Sun. Why oppose the principle of individualization? Because it creates a pervasive division.
Man and self, man and man, man and nature, everywhere are unfathomable chasms and boundaries, this sense of division is based on human reason, externalized into the sense of boundaries and rules of daily life, the result is to create a suppression of human vitality and creativity.
This is a bit abstract, but in fact, if we look at our own state of life, we will realize that Nietzsche's diagnosis of modern life is incomparably correct.
Not long ago I went on a trip to Japan, the whole society is highly rational, everything is arranged in an orderly manner, but there is a deep sense of boundaries between people, and the whole society lacks enough vitality. Even at Shinjuku Station, you experience not a loud and vibrant voice, but a strong sense of alienation and repression.
Why can Nietzsche in the 19th century predict Japan in the 21st century? This is because Nietzsche's philosophy is ahead of its time, and he once said: "My time has not yet arrived." Some people are born after death. ”
"One day I'll get what I want. It's going to be a long day that I can't see with my own eyes, when people will open my books and I'll have readers. I should write for them. ”
Nietzsche not only predicted the next two hundred years of human history, but also pointed out the ancient Greek roots of the previous two thousand years, and in The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche said: "Once everyday reality re-enters consciousness, it will be disgusting; a mood of abandonment and abstinence will arise." ”
That is why Nietzsche pinned his hopes on the true spirit of tragedy, the spirit of Dionysus, through which one can "recognize that all things are fundamentally one, that individualization is the cause of calamity, that art is a welcome hope, and that unity will be rebuilt by the dissolution of individualized charm." ”