Oedipus and "Tragic Flaw"

 I realize that by doing so I'm debating Aristotle, or at least the common understanding of Aristotle in saying this, but I wish, again, to revisit the so-called "tragic flaw" of Oedipus, the King. The word translated as "flaw," is "hamartia." It's the same word the New Testament uses that we translate as "sin." It means "missing the mark." It comes from archery. The idea of constitutional flaw isn't essential to the idea of making a mistake. I can be a great basketball player and miss the hoop sometimes. It doesn't indicate anything but a lack of perfection. When Oedipus is impulsiveness, that doesn't serve part of his immediate need--to stay alive, to remain king, to protect his family. But it does serve the greater need of rescuing Thebes from a plague that would have destroyed it. So it is a flaw? I would argue it's a tragic necessity, that there's no flaw at all. The qualities that lead to his personal destruction lead at the same time to the rescue of the city. By way of analogy I would note that it works the way the food works for all of us. Food keeps us alive. But it also kills us. There's no food that is perfectly nutritious without any negative effects. All food is balanced between benefit and cost. Some food is nearly perfect benefit; some is almost entirely cost. Oedipus' "hamartia" (a quality he has for quick thinking that sometimes is called confidence and other times pride) serves him well  until it doesn't.