The Tyranny of Reason in the World of the Polis

Abstract

The modern language of tyranny has distorted the significance of the Greek term tyrannos. In ancient Greek the term was accorded to the new ruler in the city, one whose legitimacy did not reside in his bonds to the ancient rulers and ancient families. Tyranny thus suggested a freedom from the past. Reason, as the Greeks understood it, also entailed a breaking away from the physical world. Reason and tyranny thus work together as expressions of freedom, but it is a freedom that in its transcendence of boundaries leads to tragedy. An examination of Sophocles' Oedipus draws out both the glory and the failure of the individual attempt of the political actor to rise above the historical particular and the mere body to build a world where reason alone is power.

Why Tyrants Go Too Far: Malignant Narcissism and Absolute Power

“…1 In her analysis of Sophocles' Oedipus, Saxonhouse (1988) identified tyranny with the ruler who comes to power in the city by means other than birth or precedents recognized as legitimate. This freedom from the past, she argued, parallels the Greek idea of reason, with its implication that it entails a breaking away from the physical world.…”

The Limits of Political Rationalism: Enlightenment and Religion inOedipus the Tyrant

“…He solves the riddle and thereby defeats the monster and saves Thebes. While Oedipus is sufficiently strong to kill five men single‐handedly, what makes him great is not his strength but his mind (798–813, 438–41; see 390–98, 1524–27; Saxonhouse 1988, 1264; Lattimore 1958, 95).…”

“…Through his account of Oedipus, Sophocles indicates why a pure political rationalism, that is, the attempt to govern political society in the harsh light of reason alone, must ultimately fail and why piety is therefore necessary to political life (see Saxonhouse 1988, 1272). While Oedipus goes very far in leading his life according to reason alone, he cannot resign himself, as reason dictates that he must, to the mortality of all that he cares about: his city, his loved ones, himself.…”

“…Consider Heidegger 1980, 106–08; Reinhardt 1979, 130–34; Ehrenberg 1954, 66–69, 136–66; Knox 1998, 47–52; Lattimore 1958, 94–95; Waldcock 1966, 168; Dodds 1968, 25–28; Gould 1988; and even Whitman 1971, 146, 251 (but see 123, 134). Trailblazing studies by Euben (1986, 1990, 1997) and Saxonhouse (1986, 1988, 1992) have recently challenged this consensus by stressing the similarities between Sophocles and Socratic thought. While greatly indebted to them, I go further in arguing that, although Sophocles is critical of political rationalism—the attempt to base political society on reason alone—he points to the need for a theoretical rationalism—the attempt to steer one's own life by the compass of unaided reason.…”

“…18 18 Freud's thought‐provoking thesis that Oedipus reflects “our first sexual impulses towards our mothers, and our first hatred and violent wishes towards our fathers” overlooks Sophocles’ suggestion that it is Oedipus’ ambition that brings him into conflict with his father, as Shakespeare's Prince Hal's ambition brings him into conflict with his father (Freud 1927, 221–24; Henry IV, Part One , I.ii.199–221; II.iv.432–36; Henry IV, Part Two , IV.v.20–137; see Saxonhouse 1988, 1262). Through the conflict between Laius and Oedipus, which takes place because each is so spirited that he is unwilling to give precedence to the other, Sophocles may mean to portray a potential conflict which always exists between at least spirited fathers and sons (800–13). …”