Is it Worth Fighting Against Something Greater than Yourself?

Imagine that you are a teen, living in Ancient Greece. Like anyone, you wonder about what will happen in the future, specifically about where you would be in the future. As per the local customs, you decide to take a trip to the Oracle of Delphi to receive a prophecy from the gods themselves about your future. However, you soon find out that you are prophesied to kill your father and marry your mother. You have an important decision in front of you. Should you choose to fight something greater than yourself, or just accept it for what it is? 

The tragedy of Oedipus is the prime example to look at when looking at how a person has tried to combat a greater power. This story is pretty widely known throughout the world for his unique fate, which is the same as the predicament mentioned earlier. By trying to avoid his prophecy, he fulfills it. His decision to leave Corinth and his parents behind, who turn out to be his adoptive parents, leads him to interact with his real parents in Thebes. This commitment is something that most people would do, especially if they are presented a prophecy like this and would scramble to avert such a future from occurring. His action to fight something stronger than himself leads to his eventual downfall, with him losing his parents and status. In this case, it was not worth it for Oedipus to actively try to fight fate itself as he ends up losing a lot more than the minimal amount that he gained. That one decision to avoid this prophecy led to a domino effect. It can be argued that Oedipus was responsible for his actions and that he could have stopped himself from killing his father and marrying his mother later, but he makes mistakes as humans would. Aristotle in “On Tragic Character” mentions that Oedipus is “preeminent in virtue and justice, and yet, on the other hand, does not fall into misfortune through vice or depravity” to show that even though he is from a higher social class, his personality is not that much elevated than from a normal person’s personality. This could be why this play is still referenced today, as people understand that Oedipus did not possess the intent to commit the crimes that he did and represents to an extent of what a person would do in that situation riddled with misinformation. Considering this, it is obvious that it is usually not worth it to fight against fate. 

 

The Ancient Greek period is not the only era of literature that reflects this idealogy, as it is seen in many pieces in the past few centuries. One example is The Trial,

by Franz Kafka, which explores the efforts of Josef K. to resolve his trial. In this novel, Josef is never told his crime throughout the story and is getting persecuted by an unknown governmental organization. Like Oedipus, Josef also extensively tries to combat against an entity that is more powerful than himself. As the story progresses, Josef digs his own grave, as he puts himself more in more of a compromising position than what he would have been before. In the process, he loses the respect that society has for him, similar to Oedipus. He also ends up losing his life over this, which is unknown why as the book is unfinished, but is assumed to be a direct result of his efforts to prove himself innocent. See a connection? Even though this novel is drastically different than the play, there is still the same concept written in a unique concept. Both of the characters would have been better off by not doing anything and just accepting things as they were. 

   There is also another unique take on this concept of a person facing a greater power. The novel 1984 by George Orwell describes the story of how the main character, Winston, tries to rebel against the extremely oppressive government, known as the Party. This organization is shown to be in control of all aspects of society. Winston is a part of this Party but isn’t in an influential position. However, Winston has always been secretly rebellious against the Party, as he kept a diary with his true thoughts for most of the time. He is eventually caught by the Thought police, a group similar to the Gestapo, and gets tortured horribly. In a more lax government, Winston would have been able to do a lot more if he wanted to rebel. The fact that the Party has such an influential grasp on everyday life proves that there is an impossible chance of there ever being any type of rebellion, which Winston gets fooled into thinking that there is one. A person like Winston is at an extreme disadvantage against the Party, as he is only one person against a government that has the power to literally control people’s thoughts. This is also seen with Oedipus and Josef, as they are solo teams acting against a far greater power. This would have been a different story if Winston was fighting the Party with an actual established Brotherhood group, where the power difference is not as much as before. An example of this is Star Wars, where it’s not only one Jedi versus the entire Empire but a Jedi and a group of fighters leading a rebellion. Due to this, it makes sense why Oedipus, Winston, and Josef ended up the way they did. Therefore, a person should choose to not try to change anything when against something that has an almost omniscient presence. 

As morbid as it sounds, it is better to not fight something greater than yourself, especially when it can completely overpower you. Trying to change entities like influential governmental organizations or fate leads to more bad than good. In a lot of cases, doing nothing seems to be the best option, even if it may seem like a bad decision at that time.

https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2011/01/was-oedipus-culpable

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/YouCantFightFate