Oedipus

Oedipus the King was written by Sophocles and was is titled Oedipus Rex in Latin. It is one of the most well-known Greek tragedies. As is the case with Greek tragedies—or roughly most tragedies that make their way to stage—fate plays a key role in the events in Oedipus the King. The play is also the origin of the term “Oedipus complex. ” Fate as Antagonist The primary antagonist in this tale is fate. Most tragedies where fate is the driving theme the characters in its web all attempt to escape it.

Unfortunately fate can’t be avoided and if it is tempted fate will usually render a far worse conclusion for attempting to deprive it of its will. Laius’ Fate Apollo tells Laius that he and Jocasta would have a son that would kill him. When Oedipus is born, Jocasta sends Oedipus to his own fate and leaves him on a mountainside to die. Jocasta attempts to cheat fate by doing away with her son to save her husband, but Oedipus is found by a shepherd who saw the whole thing and raised by King Polybus.

Laius’ fate comes when he kidnaps the son of King Pelops and basically showed little respect for Pelops’ hospitality by doing so. The Fate of Thebes Oedipus sends Creon to the temple of Apollo to figure out what will become of Thebes and how to do away with the plague. Fate is tempted here by the Oedipus attempting to end the plague when it is not his place to do so. Apollo tells Oedipus that he will end up killing his father and taking his mother. Oedipus believes he will end up killing King Polybus. Oedipus’ Fate Teiresias—Apollo’s blind prophet—tells Creon of Oedipus’ fate.

Oedipus is busy trying to find the murderer of Laius. Teiresias cryptically tells Oedipus the nature of his marriage, but Oedipus doesn’t interpret the meaning in Teiresias’ words. He tells Oedipus that the shame of his relationship will bring about ruin and that the insults Oedipus gives to him will be returned as a result of his deed. Oedipus sets himself up for downfall further when he forsakes Teiresias’ word and says he has no special ability.

As prophets are basically the mouth of the gods and do their direct will, Oedipus is in a way committing blasphemy. The provocation leads Teiresias to—again cryptically—tell Oedipus that he is actually on level footing with his children and that the truth with crush him. When Oedipus relays the events to his wife, she tells him to ignore the prophecy and that Apollo’s prophecy didn’t hold up as she believed that her husband was killed by a bandit. Strands of Fate Tied Up Oedipus finds out that Polybus doesn’t die at his hands, but of natural causes so it seems the prophecy didn’t come true.

However, Laius is killed by Oedipus when the two argued over who had the right of way on a road. Neither man recognized the other. Oedipus marries Jocasta, widow of Laius making his both wife and son to her and father and brother to his children. Oedipus finds out about the true nature from a shepherd, finds his wife Jocasta who had hung herself, took her jewelry and smashed them into his eyes. Oedipus ends up blind and destitute and his children cursed by being the product of incest.

Alienation is the process of becoming a separate part of the society; this is connected to the social side of life. It leaves one with a feeling of loneliness, which can either be mental or physical. As a result, characters in this instance become alienated from the world they live in. Three examples of characters who suffer from alienation are Oedipus from the play Oedipus the King, “the monster” from the novel Frankenstein, and Hamlet in the play Hamlet. These three characters go through the several stages of alienation to relieve themselves from the feeling of loneliness.

The stages of alienation include initiation, journey, suffering, and reconciliation. Initiation is an examination of oneself to decide the steps of changing out of alienation. Journey is the process in which the alienated one goes through different steps, mentally or emotionally, from one experience to the next. Suffering is the pain or distress that alienation causes. Reconciliation is the last step in alienation that reunites the alienated one with their society, peers, or even loved ones.

In the play Oedipus the King, by Sophocles, Oedipus is alienated from the city of Thebes because he kills his own father and commits incest with his own mother. The city of Thebes was under a plague until the murderer of King Laius was found. Oedipus becomes the new King after the death of Laius and begins his search for the murderer. Oedipus searches for Tiresias, the blind prophet. When he gets to Tiresias he asks him what he knows about the murder. Tiresias responds by telling Oedipus the truth brings him nothing except pain.

He continues to refuse to tell Oedipus what he sees. Oedipus gets mad at the old prophet and begins to accuse him of the murder of the King. This angers Tiresias and he tells the truth that he has discovered that Oedipus himself is the murderer of Laius. Tiresias says “he’ll be revealed a brother and a father to his children in his house, husband and son to her who gave him birth; wife-sharer and the killer of his father” (Sophocles 74). Oedipus of course denies these accusations against him and in return he accuses Tiresias and Creon of plotting against him and leaves them.

Oedipus ends up finding out from a shepherd that his real parents are not his biological parents. The original shepherd who took Oedipus in as a child, learned of his fate, that Oedipus would kill his father and marry his mother. He decided it was best to pass the young boy onto another shepherd in the next city over, Corinth. He expected if Oedipus was in a foreign city that his fate would not come true. Oedipus realizes who he is and who his parents are. The last words Oedipus mother says to him were “to live where time allows, and have a better life than the man who fathered you” (Sophocles 89).

His mother ends up killing herself and Oedipus takes the pins from her robes and stabs his eyes out, he then is alienated from the city of Thebes. Oedipus is very much alienated from his society, friends, and family. Oedipus initiation is himself trying to find out the real story behind the murder of the King. His journey is the steps he learns along the way that build up to him discovering who he actually is. It was a long journey for Oedipus in which his fate caught up to him just like Tiresias says, “Oedipus’ cloud of darkness is inescapable, unspeakable, unstoppable, driven by cruel winds” (Sophocles 49).

Oedipus suffers from the fact that he not only killed his father, but married his own mother. He also looks like a liar to the entire city of Thebes, as they trusted him to find the murderer so they could be saved. At the end, Oedipus is reconciled with the truth and decides to stab his eyes. Oedipus is the classical example of a tragic hero who also shows the reality of fate and alienation. In the novel Frankenstein, by Mary Shelley the monster is alienated from the world. The story begins with Captain Robert Walton sailing to the North Pole. His boat gets stuck hundreds of miles from land in sheets of ice.

He decides to write a letter to his sister back in England and he talks about how he wants a male friend to keep him company on the boat. Walton then runs into Victor, a very strange man to say the least. Victor talks about his life to Walton and explains about this creature he made out of human corpses. Back in Geneva, Victor’s hometown, his brother is murdered. The house servant, Justine, is accused of the murder of William. Victor realizes the monster he made is the murderer and Justine is in fact innocent. Victor decides to go on a trip to the Swiss Alps to sleep and relax.

Victor ends up running into the monster. The monster tells him a sad story about how he was alienated from the world and how he killed the boy out of revenge. The monster is mad that he was made alone and has no friends. He talks about how he has a miserable life. The monster says “I, the miserable and the abandoned, am an abortion, to be spurned at, and kicked, and trampled on” (Shelley 67). He explains a story about how a family of cottagers gave him hope that he would soon find compassion. They ended up deserting him and driving him away and this was his last chance to connect with society.

“I am alone and miserable: man will not associate with me; but one as deformed and horrible as myself would not deny herself to me. My companion must be of the same species and have the same defects. This being you must create” (Shelley 143). The monster asks Victor to create a female friend for him. After a lot of convincing, Victor decides to do it. Victor ends up killing his attempt at a monster figuring that the first monster is tricking him so that they can destroy man kind. Victor returns to Geneva to marry Elizabeth and he then remembers the promise of how the monster wanted to be with him on his wedding night.

The night of the wedding the monster ends up killing Elizabeth and Victor’s father passes away from all of the grief. The monster wanted the revenge on Victor for not creating him a companion. Victor ends up chasing the monster down but the story ends with Victor dying and the monster crying over Victor’s dead body. The monster then says he has nothing to live for and goes off to die. Before he goes off, the monster says “Was there no injustice in this? Am I to be thought the only criminal, when all human kind sinned against me” (Shelley 197).

The monster suffers alienation because his maker left him alone with a miserable life. He has no compassion for anything and has no companion to spend his time with. The monster tries to get over alienation by getting revenge on the people who do not help him. His initiation is explaining his story and loneliness to Victor. The monsters journey is the story of his life without compassion, a companion, or anyone to look out for him. He suffers from being lied to a lot and gets revenge by killing people. At the end he realized Victor was the best thing going for him and regrets revenging him, this is the monsters reconciliation.

In the play Hamlet, by Shakespeare, Hamlet is alienated from society, but more importantly from his own family. Hamlet returns home from college to discover that his father, who is also the King, has been murdered. Hamlet’s mother and uncle are now dating, just a few days after his father’s death. I believe the first person to alienate Hamlet is Gertrude. The one person Hamlet would least ever expect to do this to him, his own mother. She has not grieved at all over her husband’s death and has completely ignored Hamlet’s feelings about the situation. She ends up marrying Claudius, who was her husband’s brother, and soon to be found murderer.

Since Claudius marries Gertrude he is the new King, this strongly angers Hamlet. Gertrude does not even see why her son is so angry about the situation. These are two examples that show how Hamlet’s family members alienated him. Then Hamlet catches Claudius and Polonius spying on him, this frustrates Hamlet extremely. Claudius murdered Hamlet’s father and Hamlet is out to prove it. Procrastination stops Hamlet from taking actions into his own hands towards Claudius and this causes problems within the family. Hamlets own two best friends, Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, are even sent just to spy on him and watch him for Claudius.

Hamlet does not know who to tell about the murder so thoughts of suicide posses his mind. He says “I am myself indifferent honest, but yet I could accuse me of such things that it were better my mother had not borne me” (Shakespeare 146). Hamlet is feeling helpless and unaware of what to do about his father’s murder. It only makes it worse on him that he has no parents to talk to about the situation. He has thoughts of killing Claudius but he can not tell his mother, Claudius, Polonius, or Ophelia about his plot to kill Claudius.

Hamlet feels like he is trapped, he says “Denmark’s a prison” (Shakespeare 112). He can speak to no one just as if he were a prisoner in jail. Not having the ability of talking to others for help about situations leaves one with a feeling of alienation. Ophelia also experiences alienation. She experiences hers through Hamlet. Ophelia ends up killing herself though, unlike Hamlet. Gertrude blames Ophelia for the way Hamlet was acting and and says: “For your part, Ophelia, I do wish that your good beauties be the happy cause for Hamlet’s madness” (Shakespeare 140).

The queen has a guilt complex and always has to blame someone; she rests the guilt of Hamlets madness on the shoulders of Ophelia. Hamlet and Ophelia both suffer from alienation. Hamlet has no one to talk to about his whole situation and is forced to feel alienated about it all. He has to figure everything out himself and prove himself right. He is a very strong character and makes it through to prove his point. Hamlet and Ophelia suffer from alienation throughout Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet. Hamlet and Laertes are spied on by Claudius and Polonius so that Claudius is kept safe.

Gertrude also blames Ophelia for Hamlet’s insanity and as a result of the alienation; Hamlet and Ophelia meet a tragic end. These three characters discussed, Oedipus, the monster, and Hamlet, all suffer from various forms of character alienation. All three of them suffer through the stages of alienation: initiation, journey, suffering and reconciliation. In this sense, they are all similar. They also differ in their alienations. Oedipus is not alienated until then end, until his fate unfolds. The monster has been alienated his whole entire life and therefore takes it out by revenging on people.

Hamlet is alienated when he comes home from college and discovers his father has been murdered. Over time Hamlet reconciles and proves himself right, reviving from alienation. Oedipus and the monster never recover from alienation. All of these are examples of characters who have been alienated by different ways. In the end though, fate will always catch up rather it be positive, in Hamlets case, or negative, in Oedipus’. These characters initiated, went for the journey, suffered the pain and they reconciled, all because of alienation.

Q: Sketch the character of Thomas Wilson. Is the name ‘lotos-eater’ appropriate to him? Ans. William Somerset Maugham’s compelling short story ‘The Lotus Eater’ paints his curious meeting with Thomas Wilson, the pivotal character of the story. A retired English bank manager, Wilson, who made the Italian island Capri his own abode, had a good deal of rumour going about him. No believer of all the tittle-tattle that went about him on the island and elsewhere, the author met him personally to discover his real character. When the author met him for the first time, Wilson, a middle-aged fellow, had already spent fifteen years on the island.

As Wilson himself revealed to the author, he fell in love with Capri at first sight. Capri was an island of superb sights and sounds so much so that Wilson would enjoy them heartily until the last day of his life. After his retirement, he lived on an annuity that was to last for only twenty-five years, and he wished to live these years to his heart’s content. He was a man who would live in the present caring little about the future. To Wilson, he had justifiable reason to live after his own heart, since he had none on earth to worry about. He loved nature, music and books, which alone could feed the thoughts of a lonely man like him.

He preferred leisure to work, for he believed that people worked only to obtain leisure. Small wonder, after the expiry of his annuity, Wilson fell on worst days and lost the will-power to carry his life any further. With no hopes to live for, Wilson once made an attempt to commit suicide. Though he survived the mortal attempt, he was no longer in his right mind. Then one fateful morning, he was found lying on the mountainside with his eyes closed for ever. The author recalled Wilson saying that he had come to the island on a moonlit night.

Hence, he assumed that Wilson had breathed his last while feasting his eyes on a breath-taking sight in the moonlight. It is noteworthy that the title of the story ‘The Lotus Eater’ is remarkably appropriate to the character of Wilson. The lotus eaters in Homer’s ‘Odyssey’ were the mariners of Ulysses who forgot their friends and homes after consuming the ‘lotos’ plant on Lotus-land. Having consumed the plant, the mariners broke into a memorable chorus. The chorus worded the anguish that came with toil, as also the joy that they had in that blissful life of leisure and inaction.

When you start to analyze Oedipus’s and Antigone’s crimes it becomes easy to notice similarities between them. Both of their actions are considered criminal because of their potential to disrupt social order, they threaten the power of the state and for that reason they must be punished somehow. In both plays you can easily see how their pride affects their decisions throughout the plot and how those decisions will later on impact social order and on themselves as a character.

In Oedipus, for example, he thinks he can defy the gods and change his fate, but he ends up realizing that there is no way to change what is supposed to happen during his lifetime. Oedipus has immense pride, so much that he believes he can outsmart the gods who prophesied, via the oracle of Delphi, that he would kill his father and marry his mother.

When the oracle gave him the prophecy, he decided then not to return home so that way he would be far from his parents and avoiding such terrible fate would be easier to accomplish but it is because of his pride and his decision of trying to deny the prophecy that he unwittingly killed his father and slept with his mother.

During the beginning of the play, Oedipus has a commanding presence and dominates his subjects and by the end of the play he will be revealed as a character to be pitied. In lines 295-300 (page 1784-1785) Oedipus show a tone of arrogance towards the chorus when he was debating on defying the gods and his fate.

His arrogance at believing that he is above the law and that he can somehow escape his own fate will all lead to his downfall. Keeping in mind that he did all those things unintentionally there is a good case to say that his crime was his own pride. In legal terms, he’s not really guilty of having killed his father or marrying his mother because he had no idea he had done either of them.

In Antigone’s play, her fate it’s not much different from his father/uncle, she understood that defying the king is a crime punishable by death but her pride was too strong to not let her oversee from leaving her dead brother unburied like many of other soldiers and open for the dogs and birds to eat.

Antigone ends up taking her own life because she does not accept her “crime” that according to her was a noble act. “Every dead person should be treated the same” is what she believes in and stay true to until the end of the play when you can predicate that the Gods are on her side.

Oedipus also keep true to his values and once he finds out that he was the murder of the king he punishes himself by stabbing his own eyes and walking around blind through the dull surface of earth with his two daughters.

Tragically, because of their pride, both father and daughter, died needlessly. Is pride really more important than your own life? In today’s society pride corrupts people in every way, not choosing gender, race or religion. You can say that most crimes are committed because people take more pride on things than they should and for that reason they take impulsive actions.

It’s hard to analyze crime putting in perspective the 21st century, from when the play was written a lot of social norms changed along with some moral values. Murder and incest are the first two things we relate when we think of the play Oedipus the king, however, if you consider what the ancients thought, there might be a slightly difference.

For example, when Alias and Oedipus Rexes were reveled with their prophecies, they tried to divert themselves away from it. As a result, they reverted themselves into the prophecy, therefore fulfilling it. Although man tries to control their own fate, in reality, such control is impossible and cannot be possessed. Through the use of Oedipus’ life decisions, diction, and connotation of words to display the idea that man’s most powerful attribute fails mankind. In other words, through Oedipus Rexes, Sophocles shows that reasoning cannot give mankind the power and control they sire. Therefore, such control and power for mankind does not exist.

Oedipus Rexes proves that man’s most powerful attribute Is reasoning. Sophocles gives his readers the idea that mankind is trapped through their most powerful attribute. Oedipus Rexes believed that he could escape the reality of his prophecy through his attempts to reason throughout it. However, his aim to avoid the prophecy using reason failed him. As the prophecy was revealed to Oedipus, he believed he could avoid it by leaving Corinth and the family whom he believed was his own blood. However, this thought of his is what failed him and lead to Oedipus actually fulfilling the prophecy.

This decision leads mankind to believe that they can control their life through reasoning. As Oedipus moves onto Thebes, he crosses through the road where three roads meet. At this exact road, he meets Alias, his father, whom he does not know. Alias and Oedipus begin a feud start brawling with one another. Thus, completed. Although Oedipus continues onto Thebes and solves the sphinx’s riddle, his success leads him into the second part of his prophecy being fulfilled as he meets Coast, marries her, bears children with her, and birth children of incest.

In spite of the fact that Oedipus’ best characteristic is his constant attempt to reason, it’s his exact reasoning and questioning that lead him to the “truth” of the prophecy. Despite Oedipus’ failed attempts to control the prophecy, Alias is also another culprit of failed attempts to reason. Alias, King of Thebes, birth a child with Coast and believed that he could become the next ruler of Thebes. However, a prophecy was told to Alias that his own son would soon murder him and take over. At this very moment, he decides It’s best to bind Oedipus’ feet and send him away to die.

He does not realize, however, that this decision leads him Into the entrapment of his own life. He fulfills the actual prophecy when he tries to take Oedipus out of his life. This Is another failed attempt of reason. Therefore, man’s most powerful attribute of proves that reasoning brings mankind doom. As Alias did not want his baby to kill him, he sends the baby away. The Old man sees the baby and picks it up because no mortal being would see a baby hurt and abandoned without having to pick it up. He gives the baby to his King of Thebes because he knows they cannot bare a child, feeling pity for them all.

Oedipus himself hears about the prophecy and runs away from it. All these people, all these steps were made from attempts to reason and control the world, when in reality, it ultimately failed. Mankind cannot use their so- called “most powerful attribute of reasoning” to control their lives. If reasoning brings doom to mankind, what is the purpose of reasoning itself? Sophocles answers this question by proving through Oedipus Rexes that reasoning traps mankind, making mankind limited. The Chorus, whom supports Oedipus the most out of all characters of the play, reveal their thoughts and true emotion towards the doom of Oedipus.

Through their character, Sophocles conveys the pity one may feel towards Oedipus whom was a great man dealt with UN inevitable doom. In a passage by the Chorus on pig. 18, they stated, “A prince of men/ Whose loot what citizen/ Did not with Emmy see,] How Deep the billows of calamity/Above him roll/Watch therefore and regard that supreme day;/And of no mortal say/That man is happy,” datelined by no grievous ill/He pass Life’s goal In this passage, the Chorus shows how great of a man Oedipus was, nonetheless, how great of a King he was.

He was not only great because of his role as King, he was great because he reasons. However, this characteristic of constant reasoning, to pursue and search for the truth leads to the fulfillment of the prophecy. When the Chorus says, “billows of calamity’, they talk about the mass destruction Oedipus was placed in. On that day, he was realized he entrapped himself into the prophecy. Therefore, Oedipus acts as a representation of mankind, conveying the idea that seasoning dooms us all and traps mankind. Mankind is under the illusion that control exists and reason works.

Through the first half of the stanza, the Chorus exemplifies their support for Oedipus. He was a Prince out of all the men, who gained respect and order from his people. After Oedipus discovered his tragic state in the prophecy, such a situation could not be explained. It was disastrous, catastrophic, devastating, but all these words do not show how grievous this day was for Oedipus. He believed he escaped the prophecy and lead to be a King, a King of whom many honored. He set out to believe that he must save his city from disaster, from the plague, when he was the plague himself.

The Chorus tells the readers to watch the day Oedipus fell into the prophecy and learn that no human being is lucky. No man has a goal, for their most powerful attribute fails them ultimately. Therefore, no man is lucky until they are dead. Sophocles shows through Oedipus Rexes that reasoning cannot give mankind the power and control that they desire. Through the understanding of the way Alias and Oedipus both failed at their attempts to reason and the Journey Oedipus invests myself into throughout the play, readers are able to see how Oedipus portrays a representation of mankind.

Through his representation, one may find that although doom upon him. This leads to the idea that reasoning fails mankind and the purpose of reasoning is invalid. Sophocles uses Oedipus life decisions, diction, and connotation of words to display the idea that man’s most powerful attribute fails mankind. Although man tries to control their own fate, in reality, such control is impossible and cannot be be possessed.

In both books, Samuel I and Samuel II, King David is depicted as a true, but imperfect, example of an ideal king. When David was first introduced, he was a young boy, but quickly proved himself to be a strong leader, as he defeated Goliath, the giant. But as he takes his role as king, and gets older, his judgment and decisions aren’t always smart ones. I believe as a moral and political leader, King David was a good king, despite his sinful nature, and there is a lot to learn from his kingship.

King David’s decisions showed he was a decisive and an effective king. He captured Jerusalem from the Jebusites and took it for his own home. (Samuel II: Chapter 5, 6-7) 6: And the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, who spoke unto David, saying: ‘Except thou take away the blind and the lame, thou shalt not come in hither’; thinking: ‘David cannot come in hither. ‘ 7: Nevertheless David took the stronghold of Zion; the same is the city of David.

By David going and taking over the city of Jerusalem, it shows how he his a committed leader, and that he wanted to take this city and transform it to the capital of the holy land. In god’s eyes, this must be an extremely powerful act, as David is truly showing his loyalty to Hashem. We can also conclude that by David winning this battle, he must be a strong military leader. Despite some of the eventual imperfections of David, he still defeated his enemies and because of that the nation prospered. One of his great displays of devotion to God would be when he brought the ark from the house of Abinadab to Jerusalem. Samuel II: Chapter 6, 15-16) 15: So David and all the house of Israel brought up the ark of the Lord with shouting, and with the sound of the horn. 16: And it was so, as the ark of the Lord came into the city of David, This showed the people of Jerusalem his devotion to God, and he openly displayed his devotion by bringing it openly. David was aware how the Ark of the Covenant was most sacred and powerful item to his people, so by bringing it to Jerusalem, people would give him more support and recognize him for being a strong religious leader.

Even though we study today that this wasn’t the best way for David to prove he is a good religious leader, we still look up to him, as his purpose is what really counts. I believe a lot of us could learn from that, to be more open in our worship and show our devotion publicly to God. I believe David’s heart was in the right place and God knew that, that is why he blessed him in his reign. David wanted to build a house for the Lord, but instead God built a house for him. (Samuel II: Chapter 7, 5-6) 5: Go and tell My servant David: Thus said the Lord: Shalt thou build Me a house for Me to dwell in? : for I have not dwelt in a house since the day that I brought up the children of Israel out of Egypt, even to this day, but have walked in a tent and in a tabernacle. God made a covenant with David in which God promised to make David a great and everlasting dynasty. David showed great devotion to the lord, but fell short of his glory. The lord saw he was whole-heartedly devoted to him and therefore he made an everlasting covenant with David. I believe it was David’s “good intentions” that God did not see David’s his sinful nature, because God doesn’t expect perfection, just devotion.

The fact that David acted in a way that he constantly dedicated himself to God, and tried to do the right thing, is what God saw him for, and we can learn from that because people have a sinful nature sometimes, but God still cares for us. I think it is important to remember David was a human, granted he had responsibilities as a King, but he shouldn’t have been expected to be perfect. Like all humans, he had weaknesses, which got him into trouble. David had several “downfalls” in his reign.

One example of David’s downfalls is when he committed adultery. (Samuel II: 11, 4) 4: And David sent messengers, and took her; and she came in unto him, and he lay with her; for she was purified from her uncleanness; and she returned unto her house. This act is perhaps one of the reasons why people have controversy over David, and if he was a “good” king or not. I believe it can be compared to that of the incident of our president Clinton. David was a human like Clinton and, given they were leaders who represented a nation, were both human.

My point is that pressures are put on those with power and people expect them to be perfect when really they are not that different from us. I’m not saying that what they did was okay, but I’m just trying to understand it more. It was a sin, what they did, but God knew their hearts, and in David’s case the Lord still blessed him. I believe the greatest thing we can observe from King David would be that God called him a king after his own heart. (Samuel I: Chapter 13, 14) But now your kingdom shall not continue.

The Lord has sought for Himself a man after His own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be commander over His people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you The fact that God says this, and understands that David is a man of heart, is the most significant to learn from all of David’s actions. It was the fact that David was willing to confess his wrongdoings and admit his sins, then repent that saved him, and showed God his devotion to him. I admire David’s whole heartedness and I believe that is the most important thing I’ve learned from him.