Teiresias’s final statement predicts Oidipous will eventually give his words proper consideration, and then he will find that the seer had clearly seen the facts and knew well how to understand them. If the audience considers further Teiresias’s present words, it will find that he makes a distinction between the reasoned investigation (λογίζεσθαι) in which Oidipous places all his faith and his own prophetic mode of thought and speech, which he likewise characterizes as a form of intellection (φρονεῖν). By underscoring Oidipous’s colossal failure to understand the truth even when it is explicitly presented to him, Teiresias implies that the form of reason pertinent to prophecy (φρονεῖν) trumps reason acting on its own without divine instruction (λογίζεσθαι). The latter, one might infer, is a process of building interrelated premises, while the former must be rather a direct insight—an interior form of vision. Insight’s source is the god Apollo. Where, however, a mortal like Oidipous may prefer to rely on his own powers of reason (i.e., deduction and induction), the present example makes it clear that divinely-given insight, whether received directly or indirectly through a prophetic intermediary, is the more reliable [Mpea] [Ap] [Mi] [Md]