A comparative study of Hamartia in the tragic narrative from the point of view of Aristotle and J. Heilis Miller Focusing on Sophocles' play Oedipus the King

This article compares Aristotle's classical view of Hamartia in the tragic narrative with that of the contemporary theorist of Narrative theory, Joseph Hillis Miller. Considering that both of these theorists have chosen the tragedy of Sophocles's Oedipus the King as a model tragedy for their study, so the case study of the present article is dedicated to the same play. In order to answer its comparative questions, this study first examines the function of narrative in general from Miller's point of view and then examines this function in the subject of Hamartia in the narrative of Oedipus the King. Second, it explores Hamartia in connection with Aristotle's broader philosophical theory,and especially his moral theory. Third, as a result of the above two studies, it studies the similarities and differences between Aristotle and Miller's views on Hamartia in the tragic narrative.Finally, considering the results of the above studies, the question has been answered that from the different point of view of these two ancient and contemporary theorists, What is the use of narrations?The main achievement of this article is that it shows that according to the classical theory, narratives can provide clear and definite answers to the fundamental human questions about how to solve problems in life to present the work of the world, while in poststructuralist theory, narratives can not give such clear and definite answers, and they always owe human beings the repetition of narratives in the course of these answers.