In the story of Oedipus and Aristotle consider that "tragic drama" represented by Oedipus developed out of the 5th century BC Greeks' need to explain how it was that "bad things happen to good people." In the past (Homeric times) the Greeks were able to imagine that this moral dilemma was due to the will(s) and/or whim(s) of the god(s). But as the Athenian Greeks developed intellectually and culturally, becoming philosophically more sophisticated, the old religious reasons weren't enough, and they needed better explanations. Some years after Oedipus was presented at the spring Athenian festival in honor of Dionysus, the god of fertility and planting, the philosopher Aristotle declared this play to be the perfect example of Greek tragedy, and used it to define what a tragedy should be: A "great" man (or woman) falls through a flaw in his character. The flaw was usually given the name "hubris" – the sort of pride that brings a man into conflict with the will of the gods. (Aristotle's definition is richer and more complex than this, but this will do for our purposes here.) I would like you to find three ways that Oedipus extends and enlarges upon the concept of "hero" (as exemplified heretofore by Gilgamesh and Odysseus). Oedipus is the perfect "tragic hero" according to Aristotle. What does that mean, and how is it different from the other heroes we've looked at so far?