The Greek rationalists' search for the meaning of life through rational thought instead of traditional legends marked the first radical shift from myth to logos. Although there was no clear break with traditional religion or belief in the supernatural, Greek thought as a whole, from the 7th to the 5th century, tended increasingly to trust in logos and the the individual as a means to achieve the ultimate end. Within Oedipus the King, Sophocles reacts against the abandonment of the myth by the rationalists. Oedipus seeks to fulfill his duty as king by using the logos to seek the cause of the plague, but the reactions and warnings of the characters around him serve as a warning against this total emphasis on the logos. The tragic element of the story shows that the tradition of myths is in this case the wisest choice, because deities and fate set clear limits to human knowledge and behavior. Oedipus, for his part, shows that without a comparable regulator, logos will persist to the point of self-ruining. The advice provided by Teiresias and Jocasta uses myth to demonstrate that the knowledge provided by the search for the logos is not always beneficial. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayTiresias, the blind prophet of Apollo, knows the truth about the manifestation of Oedipus' destiny, but is reluctant to tell it to Oedipus because he believes in the myth has already revealed everything that is necessary. Oedipus declares that to rid Thebes of the plague that is sweeping it, he must “know everything” and tirelessly questions Tiresias to help him achieve this goal (1170-1171). Teiresias explains to Oedipus that “what will come will come, even if I were to shroud everything in silence” (388-389). Teiresias objects to foresight as being intrinsically beneficial; simply acquiring knowledge is not useful in itself. Even if Teiresias tells Oedipus everything he knows about the other man's fate, there is no guarantee that Oedipus will be satisfied or even happy. Teiresias implies the truth that knowledge does not necessarily guarantee that an individual will have the power to change anything, whereas Oedipus believes that with sufficient logos one can avoid what fate has declared. Furthermore, the dialogue between Tiresias and Oedipus provides a clear contrast between myth and logos and their respective approaches to exclusive knowledge. For example, Oedipus mocks the blind prophet by saying, “You cannot harm me or anyone who sees the light” (427). He believes himself to be infallible because he has a logos; however, Teiresias dismisses him: “It is not your destiny to fall into my hands. Apollo is more than enough” (428-430). Although he acknowledges that the logos gives Oedipus some power, he maintains that the mythos is superior because it occurs regardless of whether every detail is disclosed or not. Knowledge is only useful when it is known; therefore, those who rely entirely on logos are continually searching for more. By revealing truth through prophecies instead of continuous lines of questioning, myth presents an inherent limit to human knowledge that is approved by the gods and destiny. Jocasta is initially skeptical of the myth, choosing to use the logos in its place until she realizes that the logos is precisely what caused them tragedy. Jocasta details the efforts she and King Laius went to prevent the prophesied fate from occurring, including tying their baby's ankles together and sending a servant to abandon him in the wild (784–800). If Jocasta and King Laius.