The Greek rationalists' search for the meaning of life through rational thought rather than traditional legends marked the first radical shift from myth to logos. Although there was no clear break with either traditional religion or belief in the supernatural, Greek thought as a whole from the 7th to the 5th centuries tended increasingly towards a reliance on the logos and the individual as a means to the ultimate end. Within Oedipus Rex, Sophocles reacts to the abandonment of the myth by the rationalists. Oedipus tries to fulfill his duty as king by using logos to research the cause of the plague, but the reactions and warnings of the characters around him serve as a warning against this total insistence on logos. The tragic element within the story serves to demonstrate that the tradition of myths is the wisest choice in this case because deities and Destiny provide clear boundaries to human knowledge and behavior. Oedipus, on the other hand, shows that without a comparable regulator, the logos will continue to the point of self-ruin. The guidance provided by Tiresias and Jocasta uses myth to demonstrate that the knowledge brought by the search for logos is not always beneficial. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Tiresias, the blind prophet of Apollo, knows the truth about the manifestation of Oedipus' destiny, but is reluctant to tell Oedipus because he believes the myths have already revealed all that is necessary. Oedipus declares that to free Thebes from the plague that has struck it, he must "know everything" and incessantly interrogates Tiresias to help him achieve this goal (1170-1171). Tiresias explains to Oedipus that “what comes will come, even if I had to keep it all in silence” (388-389). Tiresias opposes foresight as intrinsically advantageous; the simple act of acquiring knowledge is not in itself useful. Even if Tiresias 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 something, while 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 mythos and logos and their respective approaches to proprietary knowledge. For example, Oedipus taunts the blind prophet, saying, “You cannot hurt me or anyone else who sees the light” (427). He believes he is infallible because he possesses the logos; however, Tiresias 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 argues that the mythos is superior because it happens regardless of whether every detail is made known. Knowledge is only useful when it is known; therefore, those who rely completely on logos are continually looking for something more. By revealing truth through prophecy rather than continuous lines of questioning, myth presents an inherent boundary for human knowledge that is approved by the gods and fate. Jocasta is initially skeptical of the myth, choosing to use the logos in its place until she realizes that the logos is the very thing that brought them tragedy. Jocasta details everything she and King Laius had to go through to prevent the prophesied fate from occurring, including pinning their child's ankles together and sending a servant to abandon him in the wilderness (784-800). If Jocasta and King Laius had not taken steps to try to prevent the prophecy from happening.