So i transferred to a new school in junior year and its not been going great. I feel like the social bonds have already been set cuz, trying to connect and talk to these people has not been fun at all.

It feels like im invisible to them and it really sucks having no one to chat with. I see this happening with other transfer students as well so ik its not just a me problem

So should i just lock in focus on my stuff and wait for college or am i making a mistake and i should keep trying to make connections?

im in freshman year, its first semester and i have 1 f in my language class and 1 c and 2 b and 2 a. i heard if you have an F u cant graduate. am i cooked? what should i do

facts:

- we were a trio at the start of the year

- they are way close now and i am excluded, seemingly on purpose

- i have never (to my knowledge) done anything to either of them

- they hang out without me (without even telling me) and never with me

- they seem to have had halloween plans without me and then lied to me about it

- im super sick of this and i dont know what to do

should i...

a) completely ghost them and just be by myself or with some random aquaintances

pro: i think this will stop their affect on my mental health

con: i have one class with one of the girls and we sit together

b) confront them, ask them if there is a reason they are doing this

pro: they have a chance to explain, maybe we'll make up

con: they could lie, get mad

c) do nothing

pro: no conflict, i technically still have friends

con: i'll keep holding back tears at our lunch table

im losing my mind

Hello, everyone! I’m excited to share an essay I recently submitted for my online high school English course. This is the first graded assignment of the course, and I spent a full two weeks refining it. Honestly, I’m quite proud of the effort and thought I put into this work; while it might seem intense for a high-school assignment, I wanted to push my limits and produce something exceptional.

To give some context, I haven’t officially graduated high school yet. For many years, my ADHD made it difficult to apply consistent cognitive effort, which held me back academically. However, with recent treatment involving stimulant medication, I’ve experienced a surge in productivity and focus over the past month—more than I ever have in my 21 years prior to treatment. This essay reflects that shift, and I’m hopeful that my evaluator will see the effort and thought behind it. Still, I’d love feedback from those with academic backgrounds or expertise in literature and writing.

So here it is, an overly ambitious high school analysis on Hamlet and Oedipus Rex! I welcome any constructive criticism or insights from anyone willing to take a look.

Thank you so much in advance for your time and any feedback you might offer. It would mean a lot to me as I continue on this new journey.

The Limits of Reason: Modern Skepticism and Classical Fatalism in Hamlet and Oedipus Rex

According to Gorgias, the fifth-century philosopher, tragedy evokes fear, pity, and awe to  uncover hidden truths about human nature, offering profound insights into overwhelming  experiences (Critchley and Webster 21). This emotional resonance reflects the limitations of  human reason and the ethical dilemmas inherent in confronting an uncertain and disorderly  universe. Masterworks of dramatic literature, such as Shakespeare's Hamlet and Sophocles' Oedipus Rex, anchor themselves in this profound human struggle against forces beyond our  control. 

Both Hamlet and Oedipus Rex delve into the overarching philosophical dilemma of the  limitations of human reason, presenting protagonists who confront epistemological, individual,  and political crises. Hamlet embodies modern skepticism, attempting to assert individual agency  within the confines of his historical circumstances. In contrast, Oedipus exemplifies classical  fatalism, ultimately acknowledging the supremacy of divine forces that govern human fate. This  essay examines how Shakespeare's Hamlet and Sophocles' Oedipus Rex use their protagonists'  struggles with the limitations of human reason—manifested through modern skepticism and  classical fatalism—and expressed via linguistic equivocation and dramatic irony, to explore the  philosophical implications on knowledge and identity. By analyzing these elements, the essay  argues that the plays present divergent political outcomes and propose alternative models of  ethical leadership within their respective societies.

Building upon our examination of the interplay between emotional resonance and  philosophical inquiry in classical tragedy, it is essential to delineate the literary frameworks that  embody contrasting perspectives on the fundamental limitations of human knowledge: linguistic equivocation in Hamlet and dramatic irony in Oedipus Rex. These frameworks are not merely  artistic devices but serve as mechanisms through which the playwrights explore and illuminate  profound philosophical ideas. 

One such perspective, emerging with the advent of modernity, contends that there is no  absolute truth to anchor understanding—only layers of appearances susceptible to manipulation.  When language becomes the primary arbiter of truth, its inherent instability compromises our  grasp of reality. Here, equivocation functions as a mechanism that constrains human reason by  obscuring the distinction between semblance and actuality. This ambiguity challenges the  audience's ability to discern truth, reflecting the modern skepticism about the reliability of  knowledge and perception. 

Conversely, the predominant viewpoint preceding the Renaissance acknowledges the  insufficiency of human reason by recognizing our vulnerability in the face of incomprehensible  forces. Philosophers of classical antiquity assert the existence of external sources of truth that  reside beyond human understanding. To emphasize this collective vulnerability, they employ  dramatic irony by personifying these distant realms within theatrical productions, rendering them  accessible and intelligible. This technique allows the audience to witness the limitations of  human knowledge from an omniscient vantage point, affirming their shared fragility and  highlighting the tension between human ignorance and divine omniscience. 

By employing linguistic equivocation and dramatic irony, each playwright cultivates  distinct patterns of emotional and intellectual engagement with the audience, which are critical to understanding the plays' philosophical underpinnings. Their dramatizations serve as exemplary  models of these respective frameworks by effectively modulating the perceived distance between  the audience's vantage point and the performance– contracting it through equivocation and  expanding it through dramatic irony. 

In Hamlet, Shakespeare endows the central protagonist with an illusory reflective  capability, wherein Hamlet's words seemingly mirror his underlying doubts, intentions, and  emotions. This technique serves to merge Hamlet's inner world with the audience’s lived reality.  The strategic use of metatheatre, such as the play-within-a-play (Shakespeare 2.2.540-542),  epitomizes equivocation by merging reality and representation, actor and observer (Craig 103).  This multifaceted approach not only propels the narrative forward but also highlights the  recursive nexus of illusion that envelops the audience, who are simultaneously participants in  and observers of the pretense. By engaging the audience in upholding the same form of  deception, Shakespeare evokes a sense of weariness, suggesting that the external world is  equally unstable and ultimately unfounded. This prompts the audience to further contemplate the  reliability of perception and the nature of truth. 

Conversely, in Oedipus Rex, Sophocles employs dramatic irony to expand the intellectual  distance between the audience and the performance. The audience possesses foreknowledge of  Oedius's fate, which the protagonist himself lacks. This deliberate use of dramatic irony  intensifies the emotional impact, evoking feelings of pity and fear as they witness Oedipus's  relentless pursuit of truth leading to his own downfall. The audience experiences catharsis  alongside Oedipus during his momentous realization, without bearing culpability for his fate.  This dynamic underscores the classical perspective that truth exists beyond human manipulation,  and individuals are bound to their immutable positions within the cosmic order. The emotional responses elicited reinforce the themes of fate and human frailty, highlighting the limitations of  human reason when confronted with predetermined destiny. 

By understanding how linguistic equivocation and dramatic irony function within these  tragedies, and the philosophical perspectives they illuminate, we can better interpret the  protagonists' navigation of crises across epistemology, identity, and agency. This comprehension  lays the groundwork for a more detailed exploration in the subsequent sections, where we will  dissect the nuanced interplay of these frameworks and their profound impact on the tragic  journeys of Hamlet and Oedipus. 

Both protagonists confront profound epistemological challenges that clash with the  inherent limitations of human reason. Despite their shared engagement with issues of knowledge  and perception, the protagonists arrive at markedly divergent conclusions regarding the integrity  of knowledge, thereby shaping their respective philosophical trajectories.  

In Hamlet, linguistic equivocation fosters an environment permeated by ambiguity,  effectively blurring the boundaries between appearance and reality (Mack 297). This pervasive  uncertainty compels Hamlet into an internal struggle as he grapples with the reliability of  knowledge, particularly when it originates from supernatural sources. The ghost of his father  epitomizes this dilemma; its ambiguous nature forces Hamlet to question whether it is a truthful  apparition or a deceptive entity. He articulates this skepticism: “The spirit that I have seen / May  be the devil: and the devil hath power / To assume a pleasing shape” (Shakespeare 2.2.598-600).  This doubt exemplifies the epistemological crisis induced by linguistic equivocation—Hamlet  finds himself unable to trust his perceptions or the information presented to him. To navigate this  crisis, Hamlet resorts to human methods of verification, notably the artifice of theater. By staging  "The Mousetrap" (Shakespeare 2.2.540-542), he seeks to "catch the conscience of the king" (Shakespeare 2.2.617), utilizing performance as a tool to extract a concealed truth (Critchley and  Webster 23). However, this reliance on theatrical deception further entangles him in a web of  appearances, highlighting the problematic nature of discerning reality through layers of artifice.  The feedback loop of art imitating life serves as a microcosm of Hamlet's struggle to attain  certainty in an equivocal world; when the boundary between illusion and reality becomes  blurred, so too does the boundary between performance and identity, pretense and action. 

Conversely, in Oedipus Rex, the limitations of rationality manifest in the protagonist’s  external demise; his confidence in his own abilities and volitional pursuit of truth precipitate his  admission of a predetermined fate. Sophocles establishes this ironic interplay at the outset by  juxtaposing Oedipus’s political authority against the presence of an exalted blind prophet,  Teiresias. The confrontation between these two equally stubborn figures is punctuated by  Oedipus’s relentless effort to uncover the perpetrator of the plague and his subsequent denial of  his own involvement. Through his physical blindness– which symbolizes the capacity to  perceive divine truths beyond ordinary human sight– Teiresias possesses innate knowledge of  Oedipus's origins. 

Oedipus’s rational dismissal of the prophet’s allegations—due to their lack of tangible  evidence—underscores the limitations of human perception and the paradox of relying solely on  rational faculties to apprehend the truth. Oedipus’s reliance on language compromises the  investigation by engendering ambiguities that obscure the truth. The shifting grammatical  categories from "one man" to "one thing" and from singular to plural ("robber" to "robbers")  illustrate his capacity to evade the truth through intellectual manipulation (Sagel 219). However,  as his attempts to absolve himself only weaken his position, mirroring his futile efforts to escape  the prophecy imposed upon him, he ultimately recognizes the futility of reconciling human knowledge with divine omniscience. Upon realizing the truth of his origins and actions, Oedipus  concedes: "Lost! Ah lost! At last it's blazing clear. Light of my days, go dark. I want to gaze no  more" (Sophocles 1315-1317). His subsequent self-blinding is a symbolic act—marking his  transformation from ignorance to insight—that resolves his epistemological crisis within the  play’s ironic framework. 

As each protagonist grapples with the precariousness of human reason, they adopt  contrasting epistemological viewpoints that prefigure their reformulated conceptions of identity.  Hamlet’s skepticism about knowledge engenders his suspicion that his preexisting identity is  founded under false pretenses; his propensity to apprehend the reliability of his perceptions by  equivocating appearance and reality extends to an equivocation between external and internal  modes of expression. On the other hand, Oedipus’ deference to oracular pronouncements is  ironically catalyzed by his initial reliance on human faculties to forestall his inevitable demise.  Thus, the resolution of his identity crisis, characterized by his acceptance of his preordained  position in the cosmic order, necessitates his eventual acknowledgement of external truths. 

Appropriately, the progression from Hamlet's skepticism and Oedipus’s deference to their  respective identity crises is delineated by a corresponding philosophical contrast between self constitution and self-discovery. Both protagonists confront the prospect of transcendence by  grappling with the devastating implications that arise in each instance.  

Hamlet's allegiance to a stable identity erodes under the assault of his growing inward  skepticism. His gradual dissociation from the world and himself unfolds as he replaces his initial  belief in external knowledge with perpetual doubt. When Hamlet asserts that he “passes show”  (Shakespeare 1.2.85) during the play’s first act—expressing frustration over his father's  abbreviated mourning period—he maintains a clear distinction between genuine emotion and mere pretense. However, the pervasive ambiguity surrounding the ghost's appearance highlights  his surrender to his own fallible sensory perceptions. Consequently, Hamlet oscillates between  deductive reasoning, based on foundational assumptions, and inductive reasoning, derived from  personal observations. This oscillation mirrors his inability to decouple the ghost’s testimony  from the unreliability of his own perception. His journey toward identity disintegration is deeply  intertwined with his erratic use of these reasoning methods, confounded by the destabilizing  influence of the play's linguistic equivocation. Through this, Shakespeare illuminates the modern  skeptical perspective that questions the possibility of absolute truth.  

The philosophical significance of Hamlet’s ensuing identity crisis is revealed through a  series of equivocations that operate on a constantly evolving scale. The pantomime reenactment  of King Hamlet's murder fails to provoke Claudius, whereas the dialogical version elicits his  subtle admission of guilt. (Craig 80). This contrast underscores the emotional potency of  performances delivered by actors who convincingly integrate words with actions, regardless of  their truthfulness. Hamlet himself understands this troubling discrepancy when he instructs the  players to "suit the action to the word, the word to the action" (Shakespeare 3.2.18-19), positing  that reality and performance are inseparable. This newfound equivocation arises from his  difficulty in discerning reality from appearance, leading him to suspect that his own thoughts and  feelings are subject to theatrical manipulation.

Hamlet’s exploration of the shifting meaning of performance-related language reinforces  the self-doubt established by his engagement with theatrical mediums. He advises his mother to  "assume a virtue, if you have it not" (Shakespeare 3.4.168), suggesting that habit—a repeated,  performative action—can transform into a genuine characteristic. As a result, the destabilizing  effects of linguistic equivocation on Hamlet's interpersonal interactions desensitize him to the emotional consequences of becoming estranged from his identity by adopting an "antic  disposition” (Shakespeare 1.5.170-172). His framework of equivocation between performance  and reality creates a corresponding relationship between his genuine emotional experiences and  his feigned madness. This leaves both the audience and Hamlet himself questioning where his  true self lies.  

Hamlet’s growing recognition that all social roles are performative leads to his rejection  of predefined roles, viewing them as hollow imitations rather than authentic expressions of self.  His interactions with other self-conscious characters become increasingly strained due to his  disillusionment with identity. This culminates in his active detachment of performative roles  from any fixed essence. For instance, he exaggerates the characteristics of Osric and Laertes— the sycophant and the grieving brother—to distance himself from socially acceptable identities  such as avenger, royal heir, or mourner, which are embodied by his peers (Shakespeare 5.2.81- 204). By witnessing ubiquitous displays of insincere emotion, Hamlet invokes the unfalsifiability  of his self-fashioned transformation from aggrieved prince to histrionic madman. To Hamlet, the  insincere condolences and sacraments accompanying his father's mourning no longer merely  violate honorable social rituals; they destroy the importance assigned to familial bonds (Zamir  109). This realization gives him a warrant to forsake political action by reducing all human  endeavors to a shared mortality.  

Conversely, in Oedipus Rex, dramatic irony not only externalizes Oedipus's  epistemological challenges but also shapes his journey of self-discovery that ultimately leads to  the acceptance of external truths. Oedipus's identity is initially defined by his intellectual  prowess and adaptability—attributes that enabled him to solve the Sphinx's riddle and ascend to  the throne of Thebes. The riddle itself, involving the changing locomotion of humans throughout life, symbolizes human adaptation to nature's constraints through intellect. Ironically, while  Oedipus excels in deciphering this enigma, he remains ignorant of his own origins.  

His gradual self-discovery, tainted by parricide and incest, is mediated by the ironic  collocation of his past and his present (Sagel 220). Sophocles traces his prolific success as  Theban ruler to his inception as a helpless infant with a predestined fate. The significance of his  name, "Oedipus," meaning both "swollen foot" and "I know the foot," encapsulates this duality  of competence and ignorance. His pierced feet, a consequence of his parents' attempt to escape  the prophecy, symbolize the indelible marks of his past that he fails to recognize. This physical  impairment metaphorically represents his deviation from the natural order, as he does not  conform to the typical bipedal pattern of adulthood due to his injured feet.  

Moreover, this troubling duality is reflected in Oedipus’s interactions with the chorus as he attempts to navigate the emerging political crisis in light of his personal misfortune. His  declaration, "My spirit groans for the city and myself and you at once" (Sophocles 64), is literally  true; he embodies every constituent of Thebes because of his intertwined familial roles. His ease  in collapsing natural distinctions manifests in both the private and public domains of his life— becoming both son and husband, brother and father, leader and citizen—thereby intensifying the  ironic revelation of his unwitting crimes. It is only when Oedipus accepts the mortal limitations  imposed by his birth that he can restore order to Thebes.  

Together, Shakespeare and Sophocles illustrate the threat posed by unfettered individual  agency to political stability within the context of their contrasting philosophical viewpoints. As  the embodiment of the modern skeptical perspective, Hamlet forcefully wields his intellect to  dislodge his identity from the arbitrary behavioral norms endemic to his historical circumstances.  However, his refusal to anchor himself to any external truth—and his preference to spontaneously revise his identity—weakens his motivation to redeem the political corruption that  surrounds him. In stark contrast, Oedipus's transformation reflects the classical acknowledgment  of external truths by demonstrating the perils of striving for perfection. His realization that his  self-image was overextended into multiple contradictory roles highlights the futility of  leveraging intellect or effective leadership to transcend mortal constraints. It is at this moment  that his fixed position within the cosmic order crystallizes, empowering him to effect meaningful  political change by embracing his role as a sacrificial victim. 

Having established the philosophical relevance of Hamlet's and Oedipus's confrontations  with knowledge and identity, it is clear that their internal struggles profoundly influence their  outer engagement with the political structures that determine the fates of Denmark and Thebes.  Their contrasting approaches to leadership and ethics are informed by their respective  epistemological and metaphysical orientations—Hamlet's skepticism and self-constructed  identity, versus Oedipus's deference to external truths and acceptance of a fixed identity. This  divergence encompasses the full extent of enduring insights that their narratives impart,  revealing how their inner turmoil translates into their actions as leaders and their impact on the  political landscapes they inhabit. 

Hamlet's involvement in political affairs falters because, although he wishes to take  practical action, he feels unable to assert his own autonomy effectively (Cantor 51). His deep  disenchantment with collective human endeavors leads him to view political structures as  insignificant within a cosmos he perceives as lacking inherent meaning. Specifically, the  legitimacy of the avenger role—which resonates most strongly with Hamlet among the various  identities embodied by his peers—hinges on the crucial relationship between the avenger and the  avenged. This relationship becomes nullified as Hamlet’s disillusionment leads him to devalue the very foundation upon which acts of vengeance are justified. For instance, Hamlet’s  characterization of the world as “weary, stale, flat, and unprofitable” (Shakespeare 1.2.133)  forebodes his profound loss of motivation to undertake the decisive actions expected of a prince  and avenger. This pervasive disillusionment signifies his retreat from active political  participation. Consequently, his irrevocably fractured mental state becomes inextricably linked to  the eventual disintegration of the Danish political order. His ominous premonition that  “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark” (Shakespeare 1.4.90) ultimately materializes as he  relinquishes the last remnants of his political resistance to Claudius’s corrupt regime. 

Hamlet’s nihilistic dejection in the face of uncertainty—leading to his abdication of  political responsibility—finalizes the transformation of his philosophical outlook across each of  the three critical dimensions: initial skepticism, intermediate disillusionment, and ultimate  resignation to fatalism. As Hamlet becomes increasingly disoriented by the political implications  of his radical skepticism, he abandons his aspiration to maintain authenticity and individual  agency. This shift is exemplified by his capitulation to forces beyond his comprehension,  prompting his declaration, “There's a divinity that shapes our ends, / Rough-hew them how we  will” (Shakespeare 5.2.10-11). This statement marks a departure from his earlier vehement  distrust of supernatural influences, thereby reinforcing the reciprocal dissolution of individual  autonomy and political stability inherent in the modern skeptical perspective. 

Furthermore, Hamlet’s specific capitulation to the impending invasion by Fortinbras  signifies his acknowledgment that his desire to extricate himself from the constraints of his  historical and political context was ultimately untenable. His ironic endorsement of Fortinbras— a figure who embodies the very revenge ethic Hamlet seeks to subvert—exemplifies the  destructive consequences of his nihilistic disengagement from state affairs (Bloom 106). By approving Fortinbras as the imminent successor to the Danish throne, Hamlet facilitates the  perpetuation of the corrupt political order he sought to dismantle as a way of signaling his  submission to fate—culminating in the tragic demise of both himself and his broader political  environment. 

Conversely, Oedipus’s philosophical transformation fundamentally reconfigures his  perception of political power, enabling him to restore order to Thebes through self-sacrifice and  exile, albeit at the expense of his personal agency. Notably, Oedipus’s virtuous public service  during his reign epitomizes ideal leadership, as it is directed toward the pursuit of knowledge and  understanding. However, his renunciation of human faculties—manifested in his self-blinding— and his recognition of mortal limitations, arising from the realization that he occupies  paradoxical roles, undermine the foundations of his anthropocentric political regime. As Oedipus  himself declares, “It was Apollo, friends, Apollo, That brought this bitter bitterness, my sorrows  to completion” (Sophocles 1329-1330). This deference to Apollo dispels his previous conviction  that he could evade his destiny, thereby suggesting that human political endeavors are equally  subject to divine sanction. 

Oedipus’s political resignation, subsequent to his submission to the divine forces  governing his existence, ultimately restores order to his city. His evolution from actively  attempting to avert the impending plague—which inadvertently precipitated its occurrence—to  his voluntary abdication of political leadership, which leads to its eradication, unfolds with an  ironic symmetry to the resolution of his epistemological and identity crises. By embracing his  role as the city’s ritual scapegoat, rather than maintaining his overarching responsibility as a  citizen and leader, he satisfies the requirement of acknowledging one’s place within the cosmic  order rather than asserting dominance over it.

Consequently, Oedipus's actions strengthen communal bonds and highlight shared  vulnerability. Entrusting Creon with the care of his daughters, he assumes the responsibilities of  fatherhood instead of perpetuating the familial curse that instigated the plague. He asserts,  “Creon, since you are the only father left for these two girls, do not allow them to wander like  beggars, poor and husbandless” (Sophocles 1433-1434) Furthermore, by engaging with the  chorus in a lyrical dialogue, he expresses his anguish and acknowledges his reliance on others:  “My friends, you still attend me, steadfast... In darkness though I am, I yet recognize your voice;  I know it clearly” (Sophocles 1435-1437). This interaction reinforces the communal bonds that  will ultimately restore balance to the city in the wake of his exile, signifying an evolution from  isolated authority to integrated community member. 

Overall, the culmination of the protagonists’ respective journeys illuminates the political  ramifications embedded within their philosophical orientations. Shakespeare illustrates the  hazards of excessive skepticism by linking the modern intellectual ideal to the debilitating  paralysis it induces in his portrayal of Hamlet. Specifically, Hamlet’s exceptional intellect, which  surpasses his historical milieu, ultimately undoes itself by enabling him to perceive his own  limitations, thereby initiating a self-destructive trajectory marked by pervasive doubt.  Conversely, Sophocles imparts the redemptive power of ultimately yielding to irrational forces  through his contrasting narrative. By paradoxically positioning Oedipus as both the source and  the redeemer of the political crisis afflicting his city, Sophocles subverts conventional  associations between prevailing political paradigms and their corresponding societal outcomes.  Oedipus’s initial governance, driven by intellectual prowess and unwavering dedication to his  people, leads to the city’s devastation. However, by irrationally punishing himself—both physically and socially—for crimes he unknowingly committed, he ultimately restores harmony  to Thebes. 

Through their respective dramatizations of foundational philosophical paradigms– modern skepticism in Shakespeare’s Hamlet and classical fatalism in Sophocles’ Oedipus Rex– both playwrights engage with the enduring Western intellectual dilemma: the human propensity  to assert control over external circumstances through reason and innovation, juxtaposed against  the inherent limitations of such control. By intertwining these inquiries with the literary devices  of equivocation and dramatic irony, Shakespeare and Sophocles infuse their narratives with  profound lessons that resonate within broader philosophical discourses. At the core of their  dramatic architectures, Hamlet and Oedipus emerge as paradigmatic figures embodying  divergent resolutions to a shared existential quandary. Shakespeare posits that human faculties,  while striving towards truth, remain fundamentally fallible, thereby highlighting the  precariousness of reason in navigating a chaotic universe. In contrast, Sophocles invokes the  supremacy of external truths, asserting that certain realities lie beyond human comprehension  and control. 

Reflecting the modern inclination to deconstruct the notion of absolute truth, Hamlet weaves a complex tapestry of equivocations that mark each phase of the protagonist’s  intellectual journey. Hamlet’s initial reliance on his cognitive abilities, though commendable,  gradually succumbs to pervasive uncertainty. This trajectory is fueled by his pursuit of a holistic  existence– intellectually, socially, and politically– rooted in an idealistic conception of humanity,  which ultimately degenerates into nihilism (Cantor 90). This descent leads to psychological  paralysis and contributes to the ensuing political turmoil, emblematic of the destabilizing effects  of extreme skepticism. 

Conversely, Oedipus Rex emphasizes the value of maintaining foundational beliefs that  transcend purely rational justification. Sophocles navigates the complex interplay between  intention and consequence through the ironic portrayal of Oedipus’ dual political roles: he is both  the redeemer and the inadvertent catalyst of Thebes’ suffering. This dichotomy illustrates the  paradox of his leadership—his commendable qualities as a ruler are overshadowed by his  inadvertent role in precipitating the city’s plague. Ironically, it is Oedipus's seemingly irrational  self-punishment and deference to divine authority that ultimately restore order to Thebes.  Through this juxtaposition, Sophocles illustrates how actions that defy rational justification  within human understanding can lead to redemption when they are aligned with the divine order. 

The divergent models of leadership embodied by each protagonist reverberate in  contemporary political discourse. The most pertinent existential risks to humanity—ranging from  technological advancements to environmental crises—inhabit the frontier of innovation and  challenge our preconceptions of perceived limitations. Drawing insights from Hamlet and  Oedipus Rex, we are reminded of the imperative to balance progress with stability. On one hand,  skepticism and deconstruction have propelled civilization to new heights, fostering critical  inquiry and intellectual growth. On the other hand, they risk incurring the heavy burden of  psychological and political fragmentation, as evidenced by Hamlet’s nihilistic paralysis and the  ensuing disintegration of the Danish political order. Without a firm adherence to guiding  principles—whether they be religious, ritualistic, or otherwise—modern societies face the threat  of imminent collapse, mirroring Hamlet’s ultimate fate. Ultimately, both plays serve as  cautionary tales: political and existential cohesion may necessitate a submission to truths beyond  human reason to prevent descending into chaos and nihilism.

Works Cited

Bloom, Harold. Hamlet: Poem Unlimited. Riverhead Books, 2003.

Cantor, Paul. Shakespeare Hamlet: A Student Guide. Yale University Press, 2004.

Craig, Leon Harold. Philosophy and the Puzzles of Hamlet. Springer, 2001.

Critchley, Simon, and Jamieson Webster. Stay, Illusion! The Hamlet Doctrine. Pantheon, 2013.

Mack, Maynard. "The World of Hamlet." Hamlet, edited by Dr. Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine, Folger Shakespeare Library, 2012, pp. 292-311.

Sagel, Charles. "Life’s Tragic Shape: Plot, Design, and Destiny." Oedipus Rex: Bloom’s Modern Critical Interpretations, edited by Harold Bloom, Chelsea House Publishers, 2007, pp. 205-225.

Shakespeare, William. Hamlet. Edited by Dr. Barbara A. Mowat and Paul Werstine, Folger Shakespeare Library, 2012.

Sophocles. Oedipus Rex. Translated by David Grene, University of Chicago Press, 1942.

Zamir, Tzachi, editor. Shakespeare’s Hamlet: Philosophical Perspectives. Oxford University Press, 2007.

Yesterday I posted about getting my shirt stolen from the locker room and guess what happened today? They stole my cash..what do I do!!

I'm so cooked for college admissions it's not even funny. My entire family expects me to get into an elite college. They're constantly saying that I have to be special and great they've been saying the same thing over and over since I was lit 10 years old. My weighed gpa is 94.99 it's the beginning of 2nd quarter and I have an 89 in science and falling behind in math ALREADY.

I'm an introvert with bad public speaking and a stupid stutter and I have no interesting topics to write about for my college essay other than the same old "I was raised in a struggling immigrant family but I overcame the hardships blah blah.."

idk why the US require you to do all these stupid fucking extracurriculars just to get into college??? Having leadership roles are so hard too because most of the time it's a popularity vote. I just have stupid extracurriculars like marching band and yearbook club with ZERO leadership roles because no one likes me except my small circle of friends. I'm mediocre at EVERYTHING I like. Playing the flute, badminton, science.. I'm always overshadowed and going to be overshadowed. I have absolutely no hopes of me getting into one of the elite colleges that my family is always telling me to go to. I'm so disappointed in myself. American education is so easy compared to where I come from why do I have to be so dumb. I only have one life why can't I be perfect

I have to collect 50 responses from this survey for one of my classes. I would really appreciate it if you guys could fill it out. thanks

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSclxeFA4EaHOvaKsaOm4SCHOeueovRlN9nmH1PVPuTnSYl4vA/viewform

My son is being accused of cheating on a test but I know 100% he didn’t.

My son is a junior in a suburban high school and he has always been a great student. Never really cares about getting straight A’s, but does his best. he always is honest and has no problem studying harder for the next test if he does not do as well. We do not put pressure on him because we see him working hard every day.

He was accused of cheating in his biology class. The teacher noticed that two exams looked the same and pulled both my son and another girl aside and ask them what happened. My son said the other girl immediately started crying, and the teacher asked if they could write out a statement. He also said that it didn’t feel like the teacher believed him and put him in a position where he had to lie. He said that the teacher told him “I already know you cheated don’t lie.”

She made them both right statements about what happened in my son wrote the statement saying that he did it but when you read it, it doesn’t even sound logical because he has no idea how to make that up. The teacher compared the writings and sent just my son down to the principal’s office where the principal asked him if he cheated, and he already felt like he was cornered and had no choice, but to say yes, because he wasn’t sure if he would get in any more trouble if he went against the teacher was saying.

He went in the bathroom, crying Because he knew he didn’t do this and called me saying I did not cheat. I did not know what to do because I did not want to get in more trouble. This class is very important to me, but I also have no problem, not doing well and trying harder on the next test. I have no reason to cheat.

I know it sounds bad, but I went to this high school and had a few horrible experiences myself and my parents as immigrants did not know how to advocate for me and I feel like I need to advocate for him. I spoke with the principal and he was very rude saying that it’s his word against mine and my sons. I said that we will schedule an in person meeting next week to talk because I don’t think it’s fair to discipline someone without having a present a parent present and seeking a statement in writing from a minor under duress.

My son said that the teacher supposed to walk around in the classroom and observe the students because they sit at lab tables and they did that and the teacher didn’t see anything until the identical exams.

I’m not sure what to do, but I believe my son. I know people will always say “it can never be my child” but again this situation just feels wrong, I feel it in my gut. What do you guys think I should do?

Not to mention the school handbook does not say anything about academic dishonesty. All it says is that if they’re caught cheating, they get an automatic zero on the test for their first offense. There was no questioning by the principal to both students. No sit down with both parents. Was there an opportunity to retake the test and isolated conditions to show that they’re both not cheating.

so yk i was just tryna use the restroom like i always do during passing period. i go to one of them stalls, and i see people looking through the gaps of the stalls and laughing. obviously thats weird, so i move to the side a bit so i can have some privacy. after im done peeing, i use tissue like i normally do when i go pee, and they started laughing even more??? i left the stall and they shouted "dont go in there" hysterically, and i assume they thought i was masturbating. im actually so pissed off that happened i was ready to fight them.

Title

I wrote an essay about a topic I find interesting, and I want to make a public video about it but I don't want to go through the process of writing another script. Might be a stupid question but, is it ok to do this?

Mathematics? More like Acrobatics. Every time I'm in that class its 60 minutes of mental gymnastics. Tell me why I'm struggling to understand anything that's coming out of that robotic mouth of his. Never in my 16 years of living on this damned earth have I ever had such a horrible teacher. He single-handedly made me hate math forever. This class is horrifying. Mind degrading. Dementing. Insomnia curing. I feel like I’m on melatonin pills every time I enter. This teacher is the living proof that robots are taking over humanity. No personality whatsoever. In fact, he has the personality of a stale white cracker--which is non-fucking-existent. This teacher talks about academic integrity and grade inflation (because apparently asking for extra credit is academic dishonesty--even though I'm trying to work myself towards a better grade!), while he himself admitted to using AI to write his recommendation letters, and in fact endorses the use of ChatGPT. Academic integrity who? Academic integrity my ass! Just of out pure spite, I will use ChatGPT to answer all my homework questions. Just out of spite. (That is a lie, I might hate this teacher but I'm not about to fail.) On the topic of homework, this guy is an absolute menace. Every week I discover a new level of insanity. You think 50 (hard) problems was a lot? Wait until you get to week 5. 100 math problems all ascending from the depths of hell, a quiz, and an exam. All in one week. Does he not know that I have other classes? How self-centered can a person be? I go to his office hours about every other day and every time I do I lose another bit of my dignity. I come out of his office confused, dejected, and humiliated. He’s a narcissistic robotic fuck who deserves to have his degree revoked. I have genuinely never hated another human being this much before. Ain't no way this guy became a math teacher by any legal means. I'm literally UNLEARNING shit just by listening to him speak. I didn't even know that could happen. He's that bad at teaching.

Im being 100% honest btw

I have come to a revelation.

Being framed as smarter than others is a trap. It gives people these disgusting delusions that manifest and eventually cause their downfall. It's the Dunning–Kruger effect. If you believe in the people who think you're the smartest person, you're going to let your guard down and put less effort into your work. You'll put yourself on a pedestal and hold ridiculously high expectations upon yourself. You are not the center of the world. Focus on working hard and doing what you love rather than trying to feed your arrogance and insecurities. If you fail, keep going. Don't stop trying. The world is not going to explode just because you failed.

If you feel you're an average person and are envious of the gifted kids, don't be! Focus on what makes you happy. You stand out in your own special way and you can achieve anything if you put your mind to it!

Sorry if this advice seems very typical and cliché, but a lot of people seem to forget about this stuff. As long as this post helps one person, I'll be happy that I made this post. Thanks for reading!

I'm a 15m and wanna skip holidays with my family. My mom and my brother always talk shit about me to my relatives so I don't wanna be around my relatives as they ruined my relationship with them. Do you think its okay to want to skip holidays?

I want to intern for a Representative of my state, but the application didn't provide details for the job

(srry if my english is bad i live in Europe) soo at 12-13 years old I had to stop going to Scholl for an unknown number of days bc of extrem fear of other people and being anti social.at that moment I wanted to do school at home, bc going to scholl almost became impossible for my mental health. But for some reason it never happen. And here I am 3year later at 16. Still in the same situation. I had psychologue, doctor appointements but never really hellped that much. The things is that, I decided to go back to study at Scholl and fight my fear. The real problème in all that. Is that I lost 3 year of learning. I need to start from the begining and learn all of that in such a small amount of time. I dont have the same level of any people my age. Im trash at math at biologie and many other things.

So i came here to ask if anyone know where to start. Any channel,application, way of learning, any recommandation are welcome, if anyone had the same experience, or ways to learn fast. Thats it for me ty for Reading

This rant isn't because I'm currently struggling through it, I did NRI during Freshman and Sophomore year and haven't done it during Junior year (probably because we're studying for the ACT). I have a few reasons on why NRI is a garbage program

1. Getting an answer wrong. Looking back, how NRI handled this is probably the worst way possible. If you get a question wrong, you have to get 2 right in a row and it won't help towards completion. I personally found that pretty demotivating, stressful, and also speeding through questions to get them right. Take this for example; imagine having a job, then you get a task wrong (normal) then you would have to get two tasks in a row right to keep on getting payed and the time it takes you to get them right, won't be put towards your pay, you obviously wouldn't feel motivated to keep on working and probably just not do anything.

2. Predictable questions. I honestly feel like this is a problem, when I did NRI, I kept on getting the same questions, this seems good because it sounds easy, but you wouldn't really put any thought into the answer and just answer the same thing every time you get the question, it's not really learning. There should be some AI, or something, atp that prevents that.

3. Doesn't help towards anything. NRI has always felt like a filler assignment, just there to give people more things to do and nothing else. It personally never really helped me towards any test or anything for that matter.

I'm 16 and every day even on some weekend days I have the same feeling of pointless never ending loop (Wakeup, eat, school, eat, train, eat, shower. sleep) I feel my life's so boring and pointless I wakeup and go through the day barley making it even if I try to sleep earlier I just lay in my bed and stare at the black ceiling overthinking I have a feeling of emptiness and loneliness unless doing something to keep me from thinking ex: cycling, gym, music. Today I had no energy I legit tried to sleep in class since it felt so overwhelmingly looped I legit got kicked out of class and put in the office now my damn teacher thinks i'm deppressed which I would'nt be suprised if I was ngl the gym and music is my cope for whatever feeling this is if i never had the gym or music my state would be 10x worse. (Rant about my shitty mental state)

Personally, I have had many experiences.

https://youtu.be/6V611cCF-SU?si=l-JRb_UeqOcsbXFu

i'm going to be honest this might be the worst year of high school yet; it feels so overrated. this is why i hate senior year rn:

i genuinely have no idea what i want to do with my future and i'm getting pressured everyday about it, the school is trying to bleed us dry and get any money from us that they can (a bunch of graduation fees, yearbooks, etc.), colleges/universities also trying to bleed you dry with bullshit fees (why do you have to spend 14 dollars just to send an SAT score), i have no motivation, i just feel stressed and tired 24/7, burn out is probably the worst in senior year, and my school doesn't even have the budget to host senior events this year LMFAOO

idk why everyone says this year is the best year of high school it's so shit until probably the very end when you graduate, i thought it was going to be easy but i was so wrong

if the senior doesn’t turn 18 until after highschool and the freshman is 16 due to being held back is it ok? my friend met a girl at a concert and they hit it off pretty well before knowing each others ages and now he is worried abt if it’s ok or not

This kid in my class (we’re freshman) asked our teacher what the word “fulfill“ meant. Like respect to him for having the confidence to ask instead of just staying confused, like that’s great keep that up. But that seems like a basic word to me, like how do you not know that by 14/15 years old? Have any of y’all noticed this too? Cause I see it a lot.

edit: this reminded me of my friend the other day. She’s really smart and everything but sometimes she’ll try to argue something stupid and won’t listen to reason and I don’t have the energy to argue.

She said the uterus, fallopian tubes, and the ovaries were all one organ with different parts connected together and it was all considered the uterus. I tried to explain what she was saying was called an organ system (specifically the reproductive system) and they were all different organs. She just said “no I know because my mom had a pregnancy where it was in her tubes and she almost died” (moms ok don’t worry) but like bro. you can’t argue with stupid.

Me and my gf went as al and Peggy bundy