From Oidipous’s standpoint all hinges on the difference between one and many. This is a philosophical topic discussed by Socrates and his interlocutors in more than one of Plato’s dialogues (eg. Parmenides and Phaedo). By mentioning it, Oidipous calls philosophy to his defense. For the audience, however, this resort to philosophical argument casts philosophy in a bad light, for Oidipous’s claims to rational investigation are overshadowed by the psychological reality of his own hopes, fears, and other limitations. The appeal to philosophical reasoning must in this instance be rejected. This rejection should prompt the audience to give Oidipous’s thesis a more critical examination. It will find that what appears to be many may prove to be one, “for Laios’ son, Laios’ murderer, and Laios’ successor will prove to be one and the same person.” Three prophecies will similarly prove to have bearing on the same event: Laios must be killed by his son, Oidipous must be his father’s killer, and Oidipous is the man whom he seeks. The single Oidipous incorporates the multiple and mutually exclusive roles of son and husband to Iokaste, nephew and brother-in-law to Kreon, and father and brother to Antigone, Ismene, Polyneikes, and Eteokles. The present scenario demonstrates on the one hand the falseness of what Oidipous takes to be a philosophical truth and on the other hand the advantage of taking seriously the opportunity for divine guidance through prophecy. [Mpea] [Mi]