Certainty and Destiny in King Oedipus: A Contrast with Hamlet’s Uncertainty

Oedipus the king hi-res stock photography and images - Alamy

Sophocles’ King Oedipus shook me. It made me question free will, the age of innocence, and the old way of assigning blame without fully understanding others. What struck me most was how the characters in King Oedipus seem so assured of their own and others’ impulses—so certain of their reasoning, their conclusions, their understanding of the world. They assume intentions with unwavering confidence, acting as though every decision is clear-cut, every motive obvious. This is radically different from the characters in Hamlet, who are paralyzed by introspection, self-doubt, and hesitation.

It is a stark contrast in worldview—one where the past is an immutable script, fate an inescapable force, and human action merely an unfolding of an already written story. The modern mind, like Hamlet’s, is burdened by the weight of possibilities, while Oedipus and those around him act with an unflinching belief in the certainty of things.

The World of King Oedipus: A Place of Certainty

From the very beginning of the play, Oedipus does not hesitate. The city is plagued, and he seeks to uncover why. The priest approaches him, saying:
"Oedipus, ruler of my land, you see the age of those who sit on your altars… For the city, as you yourself see, is now sorely vexed, and can no longer lift her head from beneath the angry waves of death." (Oedipus the Tyrant, 14)

Oedipus does not waver. He immediately declares,
"Be sure that I will gladly give you all my help. I would be hard-hearted indeed if I did not pity such suppliants as these." (14)

He does not pause to reflect on the limitations of human knowledge or question his ability to solve the crisis—he acts, and he does so with certainty. His resolve is unwavering when he proclaims:
"I will start afresh, and once more make dark things plain… I will uphold this cause, as though it were that of my own father, and will leave no stone unturned in my search for the one who shed the blood." (132)

This certainty extends beyond Oedipus himself. The entire world of the play assumes that things happen for a reason, that the gods dictate fate, and that actions are explainable with black-and-white precision. When Tiresias hesitates to reveal the truth, Oedipus does not question the nature of prophecy or the limits of human knowledge—he simply assumes a conspiracy, declaring:
"You blame my anger, but do not perceive your own: no, you blame me." (330)

There is no hesitation, no second-guessing. Actions are interpreted as clear, intentions are presumed, and consequences are met with stoic acceptance once revealed.

Contrast with Hamlet: The Age of Uncertainty

Compare this to Hamlet, where almost every action is delayed by introspection. Hamlet’s defining feature is hesitation. His famous soliloquy—"To be, or not to be, that is the question"—is the complete opposite of Oedipus’s immediate action. Oedipus does not ask whether he should act; he acts. Hamlet, on the other hand, wonders if he should do anything at all.

When Oedipus is accused, he retaliates with a full-fledged accusation. When Hamlet is presented with a possible truth—that Claudius killed his father—he devises a test, a play within a play, to confirm it. Hamlet distrusts certainty. Oedipus assumes it.

Even when faced with absolute proof, Hamlet still hesitates. He catches Claudius praying and debates whether he should kill him right then and there. Oedipus, by contrast, does not hesitate for a moment when he believes Creon has betrayed him—he moves straight to threats:
"Hardly. I desire your death, not your exile." (616)

Oedipus assumes treachery. Hamlet questions whether treachery exists at all.

The Cultural Difference: A World Without Innocence

This certainty in King Oedipus is not just a personality trait—it reflects a different way of seeing the world. In ancient Greece, everything had a place, an order. Fate was clear, and so were human actions. People acted out of self-interest, and that self-interest was an accepted and expected truth. When Oedipus demands answers, no one stops to wonder if the question itself is flawed. He accuses Creon outright of treason, and Creon responds not with Hamlet-like defensiveness, but with a logical counterargument:
"Weigh this first—whether you think that anyone would choose to rule amid terrors rather than in unruffled peace, granted that he is to have the same powers." (583)

Creon is logical, not introspective. He does not say, "I wonder if I could have done something to give that impression." He simply lays out the facts: Why would I do this? It makes no sense.

Today, we live in a world of nuance. We assume good intentions. We analyze, second-guess, and hesitate before jumping to conclusions. But in the world of King Oedipus, there is no such hesitation. If someone has done something, their intent is clear. Jocasta, pleading with Oedipus, begs him:
"Unhappy men! Why have you made this crazy uproar? … Stop making all this noise about some petty thing." (649)

To her, this is not the unraveling of some great metaphysical truth—it is a pointless argument. The characters do not wrestle with their inner selves the way Hamlet does. Even when Oedipus realizes the truth, there is no reflection—only action. He blinds himself without questioning whether this is the best response. He simply declares:
"It is better to be blind. What sight is there that could give me joy?" (1367)

The Legacy of King Oedipus: A World Before Doubt

The world of King Oedipus is a world before the age of innocence. It is a world that assumes people act in self-interest, that the world has a rigid order, and that everything—fate, human motives, divine justice—is explainable with certainty. In contrast, Hamlet exists in a world of ambiguity, where humans are unpredictable, where good and evil blur, where action is never quite justified.

This might explain why King Oedipus still feels so alien to modern audiences. It operates on an assumption we no longer share—that certainty is possible. The play assumes, without question, that if a man commits a crime, he must be punished. No room for doubt, no space for subjective interpretation. Hamlet, by contrast, spends the entire play trying to justify one action, and even then, he only takes it at the last possible moment, when all other options have disappeared.

Perhaps the greatest tragedy of Oedipus is not his fate, but his certainty. The belief that he must uncover the truth, that he must act, that he must punish himself. Today, we might tell Oedipus to step back, to reflect, to seek therapy instead of punishment. But in his world, there is only one response: clarity, action, consequence.

What Is Learned from Chapter 3 of Ptolemy’s Almagest on “That the Heavens Move Like a Sphere”

Chapter 3 of the Almagest clearly lays out the idea that the celestial sphere is a complete, rotating sphere—a model that explains the orderly motions of the heavens. Below is a concise summary of the key points from this chapter.

Observations of Celestial Motion

  • Regular Circular Motions: Ptolemy observes that the fixed stars move in perfectly circular paths. Their steady, unvarying motion suggests an underlying geometric order. This regularity is most easily explained if the stars are fixed on a rotating celestial sphere.
  • Variation in Circle Sizes: He also notes that stars near the celestial pole trace smaller circles, while those farther away describe larger ones. This pattern fits exactly with what we expect on a spherical surface, where circles centered on the pole shrink as one moves closer to it.

These clear, observable features form the basis of the claim that “the heavens move like a sphere.”

Key Elements Considered in Ptolemy’s Studies

  • Fixed Stars: These stars serve as the permanent backdrop. Their constant, circular motion is taken as evidence that they are embedded on a single, rotating sphere.
  • Moving Stars (Planets): In contrast, the planets—often called “wandering stars”—follow more complex paths. While Ptolemy later explains these motions using additional tools like epicycles, the core idea remains that they too move on or within a spherical framework.
  • The Earth, Sun, and Moon: Besides the stars, Ptolemy also examines the motions of the Sun and Moon. Their observed paths (especially the Sun’s motion along the ecliptic) further support a geocentric model in which the Earth is immobile at the center of the spherical heavens.

By analyzing these components, Ptolemy builds a consistent picture where the diverse motions of the celestial bodies can be seen as variations on a single, unified geometric theme.

Theories Explaining How Celestial Objects Move

Ptolemy and his predecessors considered several models for celestial motion:

1. Spherical Heavens Centered on the Earth: This is the favored model. It posits that the heavens form a complete, rotating sphere with the Earth fixed at its center. On a sphere, the variation in the sizes of the stars’ circular paths arises naturally. This model is simple and directly matches the observations.

2. Alternative Cosmic Arrangements: Other models were proposed, including:

  • Flat or Dome-Like Configurations: These models had difficulty explaining why stars near the pole would trace smaller circles than those farther away.
  • Complex Geometrical Constructions (Nested Spheres, Epicycles): While these could mathematically reproduce the observed motions, they required additional assumptions and lacked the natural elegance of the spherical model.

3. Additional Proposals:

Some thinkers suggested more radical ideas:

  • Heavens Moving in a Straight Line: This theory posited that the heavens might move in a straight line instead of circular paths, but it fails to account for the recurring, closed loops observed.
  • Heavens That “Kindle and Then Die”: Another idea was that the celestial bodies were transient, igniting and then extinguishing in cycles. However, such a process would not match the constant, enduring appearance of the stars.

After evaluating these options, Ptolemy rejected the alternatives on both observational and logical grounds. Only the geocentric spherical model naturally reproduces the regular motions seen in the heavens.

To conclude: 

Chapter 3 of the Almagest delivers a clear message: the celestial sphere is a complete, rotating sphere. Ptolemy shows that the regular circular motions and the systematic variation in circle sizes among the stars are best explained by this spherical model. By considering fixed stars, the planets, and the motions of the Sun and Moon, he builds a coherent, unified picture of the cosmos. This chapter leaves us with a simple, yet powerful insight: the universe, as seen from Earth, is governed by the natural, inevitable geometry of a sphere.

What I learned from Chapter 2 of Ptolemy’s Almagest

From my reading of Chapter 2 (translated and annotated by GJ Toomer), Ptolemy establishes a foundation for understanding the cosmos. His method is to build knowledge in a systematic order. According to the text:

"The general preliminary discussion covers the following topics. The heaven is spherical in shape and moves as a sphere. The earth, too, is sensible, spherical in shape. When taken as a whole and positioned, it lies in the middle of the heavens, very much like its center in size and distance. It has the ratio of a point to the sphere of the fixed stars, and it has no motion from place to place. We shall briefly discuss each of these points for the sake of reminder."

Ptolemy’s approach begins with a focus on the Earth—its shape and position—before moving on to the Sun, Moon, fixed stars, and beyond. This is the structured method he uses to explain celestial phenomena.

What I Learned from the First Chapter of Ptolemy's Almagest

I’ve been diving into The Almagest, translated by G.J. Toomer, and the first chapter gave me deep insights into philosophy, mathematics, and the nature of knowledge. Here are my key takeaways:

1️⃣ The Divide Between Practical and Theoretical Philosophy

Philosophy is divided into two parts: practical and theoretical. Practical philosophy can often be learned through experience—people can possess moral virtues without formal teaching. Theoretical philosophy, on the other hand, requires instruction and study. Practical wisdom improves through action, while theoretical knowledge grows through deep inquiry.

2️⃣ Mathematics as the Most Certain Knowledge

The discussion highlights three divisions of theoretical philosophy: physics, mathematics, and theology. Physics studies the material and changing world, making it unstable and uncertain. Theology deals with what is beyond perception, making it speculative. Mathematics, however, remains unchanging, eternal, and the most reliable form of knowledge. It serves as a bridge between the material and the divine, capable of supporting both physics and theology.

3️⃣ Mathematics as Our Language for the Physical World

One passage that truly stood out to me was:

"As for physics, mathematics can make a significant contribution. For almost every peculiar attribute of matter becomes apparent from peculiarities of its motion from place to place. Thus, one can distinguish the corruptible from the incorruptible—whether it undergoes motion in a straight line or in a circle, heavy from light, or passive from active, whether it moves towards the center or away from the center."

This is a beautiful description of how mathematics allows us to describe the nature of the physical world—how we categorize motion, weight, and forces. Mathematics has been our human language for encoding the attributes and qualities of reality. But now, with the rise of AI and machine learning, we are seeing a new way to represent the physical world—through neural network weights.

What if these AI systems, by learning from vast amounts of data, could encode the laws of physics in ways we can’t yet fully comprehend? Could these neural networks serve as a new kind of mathematical language, capturing not just the mechanics of the universe, but perhaps even the deeper truths that theology seeks to understand?

This makes me wonder—are we at the beginning of a paradigm shift in how we define and discover truth? Would love to hear your thoughts!

#Philosophy #Mathematics #AI #MachineLearning #Physics #TheAlmagest #Knowledge #IntellectualGrowth

Things I Learned from Reading Twilight of the Idols

A person I met twice told me she read Nietzsche when she was younger. She described that her life was made more difficult with his ideas, and I distinctly remember her telling me that she had to decide to live her life being neutral toward people instead of judging them with Nietzsche’s values. I think she observed that his way was unnatural to adopt in daily life because it went against the cultural norms. Once I picked up Twilight of The Idols (Penguin Classics), a conversation with her was in my mind.

Style

Stylistically, I see that Nietzsche believed in writing Maxims that grasped the essence of what he meant to say. He wrote that very few could understand him, and he developed his style because he wanted to convey in one sentence or paragraph what others could not say in ten books. He liked short, dry, cold, concise, harsh, serious sentences. He makes a point as an observer or critic and moves on to the next idea, paragraph by paragraph. Paragraphs are short and tie with each other, and overall I think he is a good critic and a very good observer.   

Training 

It seems like his intellectual growth happened as he studied the pre-Socratic tragedies. He found that there was not much moralizing of the events but mere facts and depiction o how life happened. He saw the difference not only in plays but also in how historians depicted history. For example, Pre-Socratic Thucydides told the story as facts without making one side or the other good or bad. Thucydides saw them as people who were doing what they needed to do to survive and extend their survival by gaining more power. He didn’t make the Spartans, Athenians, Sicilians, or Persians bad whereas later historians depicted Persians evil. In this literature and history analysis, I think he noticed that after Socrates and especially after the flourishing of Christianity, he observed that there was this moralizing of our actions to think that we are the good guys and outsiders are the bad guys in the stories. 

Issues with Socrates

One of his answers was that Socratic influence and the Socratic method must have influenced this change. Moralizing all the time and making ourselves the good guys and our enemies the bad guys is not a mature way to affirm life. Even though Nietzsche was a big supporter of reason, he figured the Socratic promise led us into this pit full of moralizing over and over to come up with reasons to legitimize our actions. Building on the criticism, he even claimed Socrates didn’t affirm life truly because he wanted to believe his formula and fictional promise but he was unhappy and wanted to die even though he had the chance to escape the execution.

Issues with the Church

Also, he took up this fight with the Christian ways because he thought that the Christian way was not affirming life the way he saw was better. Both the Socratic way and the Christian way provided the expedited solution to the suffering and harshness of life, he argued. He thought it made people feel comfortable way earlier than he thought they should have. His method, will to power, I suspect, must have been about taking more time to embrace and let the feeling of life sit in before choosing an easy passage out with Socratic promise or Christian forgiveness. 

Way to deal with Nihilism

His method to get attention was that he called the Christians and the Socratic practitioners weak because they were accepting a well-put-together answer, only one answer as a solution without the nuances and duality in many things. He even claimed that God was dead to get more attention because people didn’t choose to wrestle with the idea of God and build a relationship with him. People took the word of the preacher and failed to live the spiritual life to the fullest themselves. The Church was growing but the true practitioners who truly wanted to understand God lacked experience. No one made that attempt to talk with God on their own; therefore, God was dead. In that way, you can see that he was a very suspicious man, suspicious of the romantics and suspicious of the easy answer to the problems. 

He considers his best accomplishment was the book called Reevaluation of the Values. He thought he had to do it because the Western thought was polluted by moralization everywhere, away from the truth, wanting to be happy and wanting to feel good fast. He thought the West missed the opportunity to do so when the Protestant movement solved the problems with the Catholic Church with a good enough solution. The period of enlightenment and the opportunity to reassess Western values with the help of the influx of Greek thought was lost with Luther’s good enough renovation.   

Causation might not be there

Personally, one takeaway for me has been Nietzsche’s encouragement to look at the causal relationship we think exists and encouragement to ask if things actually work that way. It brought light to, for example, one of the causal relationships I have learned in College: in Socratic way if you think, you build knowledge and virtue so that you can eventually be happy. I wanted to maximize virtue and figure out what is the right way and a good life. Now I am evaluating if that causational relationship is actually right. There are reasons to think that the causation might be wrong. Imagine a scenario where you actually might be more virtuous if you are happy. It might be true because I have more virtues such as being willing to help more people when I am happy and in a good mood etc.  

To conclude:

Nietzsche’s other observation was that Western society got the easy solutions to life’s suffering with the Socratic and Christian prescription for happiness; he pointed out that the causes have not been very much studied and proven. So to conclude, I think we can take Nietzsche as a good psychologist, thinker, critic, and observer. I look forward to reading how Will of Power is meant to be practiced to live a more fulfilling and life-affirming way. As Nietzsche would agree, ‘Let’s reevaluate the things that we take to be true, our values, and especially the causations, and let’s not take one simplified answer because it feels good.’