However, the play goes even further than these hints in demonstrating the irrelevance of any supernatural force to the story's action when Tiresias mocks Oedipus for suggesting that the blind seer is the source of the plague (Sophocles 27). When Oedipus accuses Tiresias of a being "a conspirator" to Laius' murder due to his reluctance to tell what he knows, Tiresias responds by asking "Sooth sayest thou?" (Sophocles 26-27). While Tiresias is obviously taking a jab at the dramatic irony created by Oedipus' ignorance, he is also hinting at the fact that anybody can say whatever they want and call it prophecy. This scene effectively dismantles the logical fallacy of mere assertion (upon which most declarations of supernatural existence depend), because Oedipus attempts to simply assert his own innocence and Tiresias' guilt while Tiresias is comfortable in the knowledge that he is right, and feels safe "of there be a sure defence in the truth" (Sophocles 29).
Once Oedipus realizes the truth of the destruction that he has wrought in an attempt to escape his seemingly predetermined fate, he blinds himself and decides to leave Thebes forever. Oedipus' decision to blind himself brings up a rather obvious parallel to Tiresias, but not the parallel that one might expect. The irony of Tiresias' character is that he is a blind seer, but as demonstrated above, Tiresias' ability does not necessarily come from any supernatural source. Nevertheless, the message remains relatively the same; namely, that a lack of literal sight allows Tiresias a kind of forethought and vision not afforded to the other characters. In the same way, Oedipus' blinding essentially frees him from the fatalistic dictates of his own free will. That is to say, Oedipus' fate was the result of his desire to proactively prevent a prophecy from coming true, and as a result he actually forced it occur. His tragedy stems from his very human drive to predict the future, even with insufficient knowledge, and thus his blinding metaphorically...
When he can no longer see, he is essentially free from the desire to predict and determine his own fate, and thus fate no longer has any hold on him. Thus, when Oedipus asks "Blind am I borne, in fate's control?," he is actually referencing his life prior to his literal blinding; in a sense, being able to see is what drives human beings in their attempt to shape and control their own fate, and thus a lack of sight ultimately frees him "fate's control," which in reality is the "control" that every person desires to have over his or her life (Sophocles 107).
The role of fate and free will in Sophocles' Oedipus the King is far more nuanced and frankly more interesting than in many other tragedies and dramas, because the play suggests that what people call "fate" is in reality the product of the decisions people make with the often limited knowledge that they have. Though the play includes seemingly supernatural elements such as seers and plagues, when examining the play in detail it becomes clear that these seemingly supernatural elements are merely a means of demonstrating how human beings are frequently fooled, not only by the declarations of others, but often by their own ignorance and hubris. The course of Oedipus' life is not actually dictated by an overwhelming, supernatural fate, but rather the flawed and misinformed actions of human beings. In the end, the play suggests that Oedipus has actually come to terms with this fact, such that his blinding, while horrific, can be viewed almost as a triumphal moment, when Oedipus finally frees himself of the human tendency to run headlong into trouble as a result of hubris and an overestimation of one's own knowledge and foresight.
Works Cited
Sophocles. Oedipus the King. London: Macmillian and Co, 1885. Print.
It is worth noting that in this scene Oedipus also engages in an appeal to force, which is another logical fallacy, and fits quite naturally with his hubris and self-righteousness.
