"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about."
G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
English author & mystery novelist (1874 - 1936)
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Who writes history?
"Great nations write autobiographies in three manuscripts, the book of their deeds, the book of their words, and the book of their art." - John Ruskin, English critic.
from The Ancient Mediterranean World, page xii, paragraph 1.
This is an interesting quote to me because of the question of history's reliability: would history books teach us the same thing about Hitler and the Nazis had they not lost the second world war?
Also, art and books can be historically censored, much like they were in the time of the Nazis. What history books tell us are all that our ancestors CHOSE to pass on to us.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
The Midas Touch
Q. To understand happiness do you have to lose everything to gain everything?
A. King Midas lost true happiness by making a foolish wish "for everything my body touches change into gold". Yes gold and wealth makes you content but doesn’t support your true needs and won’t give you life long satisfaction. King Midas felt poor even with the magic touch and even though he lost everything he realized you want what you can not have and there are more things in life that are important then wealth and riches.
A. King Midas lost true happiness by making a foolish wish "for everything my body touches change into gold". Yes gold and wealth makes you content but doesn’t support your true needs and won’t give you life long satisfaction. King Midas felt poor even with the magic touch and even though he lost everything he realized you want what you can not have and there are more things in life that are important then wealth and riches.
Folly of Greed: King Midas
King Midas's craving for wealth overpowered his basic needs (food, water, shelter) why did Midas make such a foolish wish?
The wish for wealth is a motivator for everyone, sometimes people choose to wish for wealth for self use or to impress others. In king Midas's case he wanted it because it made him feel powerful, he feels that every luxury can be purchased by gold. When Midas got his wish he realized that the most important things in life are not paid for by great wealth this is when Midas realizes that his wish was foolish for he gets rid of his basic needs to achieve power in the view of himself and others.
The wish for wealth is a motivator for everyone, sometimes people choose to wish for wealth for self use or to impress others. In king Midas's case he wanted it because it made him feel powerful, he feels that every luxury can be purchased by gold. When Midas got his wish he realized that the most important things in life are not paid for by great wealth this is when Midas realizes that his wish was foolish for he gets rid of his basic needs to achieve power in the view of himself and others.
A Lesson from Vanity: Narcissus
Will Narcissus ever learn to stop being vain from his punishment or was his punishment too much of an exile so that he will never learn?
In a way I feel that Narcissus was deserving of death as his punishment for vanity because he wasted his whole life loving only himself and never doing anyhting to appreciate or help things more important to him. Narcissus is now in the Underworld and never will find true love in something or someone other than himself. It was a punishment well- suited for him, he could never reach love becaus ehe was too focused on himself.
In a way I feel that Narcissus was deserving of death as his punishment for vanity because he wasted his whole life loving only himself and never doing anyhting to appreciate or help things more important to him. Narcissus is now in the Underworld and never will find true love in something or someone other than himself. It was a punishment well- suited for him, he could never reach love becaus ehe was too focused on himself.
Is foolishness a just cause for punishment?
Yes:
-Negative reinforcement is a proven method of improvement. If a child is backhanded everytime they do something foolish, would they do it again?
-Natural selection should be allowed to take place, causing the weak and foolish to die or atleast not rise in society.
No:
-Negative reinforcement is considered "cruel and unusual punishment" in today's society. (allowing geneticly inferior people to prosper and ruin the world)
-Sometimes people just cannot help their foolishness. (because natural selection was not allowed to run its course)
From "Narcissus and Echo"
Do we all live in a world of vanity?
- is beauty all that matters?
Narcissus was a narcissist so to speak, meaning that he knew and thrived on the fact that he was very appealing to others, which in the end was his own demise. He showed no passion or interest towards any other; only for the reason that he thought that they weren’t good enough for him. He recalled that many had loved him, but for his looks. That was the only judging basis he knew, because the only attraction Narcissus had was between himself and his beauty. But the untimely end of Narcissus was stated at the very beginning of the myth when the sea nymph Leiriope asked whether her new born son would live a long life, and the reply from Teiresias was “If he never knows himself”. Teiresias knew that once Narcissus gazed upon his own reflection he would fall in love.
But to answer my question I feel that vanity has a lot to do with succession. The proof comes from famous actors, and actresses, both in movies and in theatre ect, if you really think about it, there aren’t many un attractive performers. The same goes with singers and dancers, most of which are attractive. But being a famous actor isn’t the only type of success. But again you can look around at business men who are quite successful, a lot of them are attractive, it gives them a leg up because people want to listen to them. An example of a (not as attractive) successful person within the major industries is Bill Gates. This shows that sometimes there are unattractive successful people, but most succession I would say does include looks.
- is beauty all that matters?
Narcissus was a narcissist so to speak, meaning that he knew and thrived on the fact that he was very appealing to others, which in the end was his own demise. He showed no passion or interest towards any other; only for the reason that he thought that they weren’t good enough for him. He recalled that many had loved him, but for his looks. That was the only judging basis he knew, because the only attraction Narcissus had was between himself and his beauty. But the untimely end of Narcissus was stated at the very beginning of the myth when the sea nymph Leiriope asked whether her new born son would live a long life, and the reply from Teiresias was “If he never knows himself”. Teiresias knew that once Narcissus gazed upon his own reflection he would fall in love.
But to answer my question I feel that vanity has a lot to do with succession. The proof comes from famous actors, and actresses, both in movies and in theatre ect, if you really think about it, there aren’t many un attractive performers. The same goes with singers and dancers, most of which are attractive. But being a famous actor isn’t the only type of success. But again you can look around at business men who are quite successful, a lot of them are attractive, it gives them a leg up because people want to listen to them. An example of a (not as attractive) successful person within the major industries is Bill Gates. This shows that sometimes there are unattractive successful people, but most succession I would say does include looks.
Should greed garner sympathy?
King Midas was wise to a certain degree and stupid in many others. He took in Seilenus because he knew that Dionysus favoured Seilenus and by taking him in Midas may gain a wonderful gift from Dionysus by taking care of his friend. When Dionysus is reunited with his friend he promises Midas anything he wants – this is where his wise thinking takes a turn to the greedy and stupid side. He, in his greed, requests to have the magic golden touch. He can’t eat, he can’t drink – he can’t touch anything with his skin. Distraught he pleads to Dionysus and Dionysus takes pity on Midas and tells him how to rid himself of the golden touch and he commits the action, finally able to continue living his life but should his stupidity, should his greed, have garnered sympathy?
In my opinion, no it shouldn’t have. Dionysus promised Midas anything he wanted, he could have asked for anything in the world but he let his greed overshadow his sense and therefore was ‘cursed’ with the golden touch. Dionysus shouldn’t have let him revoke the wish, shouldn’t have given him the cure, as it was Midas’ fault to begin with. He was greedy, not kind to his people or his loved ones by wishing for something that would benefit all. His greed, his lack of foresight, left him hungry and thirsty, left him yearning for human contact that he couldn’t have. All of this because he was foolish.
While I condemn him for his faults I also have to bring to light the fact that most people, most human beings, are inherently greedy and many may ask for a similar wish. Midas was just doing what his nature prompted him to do. I can’t say for certain that my first thought wouldn’t stray to money; it is just part of our society. Not many humans can say that if they were given the chance to ask for anything that their first thought would not center on money – Midas just chose his own personal monetary wish with little foresight. This myth teaches us to be wise, to think before we act, and to not be greedy as it can backfire on you. It teaches a valuable lesson that must be remembered especially in a monetary driven society.
In my opinion, no it shouldn’t have. Dionysus promised Midas anything he wanted, he could have asked for anything in the world but he let his greed overshadow his sense and therefore was ‘cursed’ with the golden touch. Dionysus shouldn’t have let him revoke the wish, shouldn’t have given him the cure, as it was Midas’ fault to begin with. He was greedy, not kind to his people or his loved ones by wishing for something that would benefit all. His greed, his lack of foresight, left him hungry and thirsty, left him yearning for human contact that he couldn’t have. All of this because he was foolish.
While I condemn him for his faults I also have to bring to light the fact that most people, most human beings, are inherently greedy and many may ask for a similar wish. Midas was just doing what his nature prompted him to do. I can’t say for certain that my first thought wouldn’t stray to money; it is just part of our society. Not many humans can say that if they were given the chance to ask for anything that their first thought would not center on money – Midas just chose his own personal monetary wish with little foresight. This myth teaches us to be wise, to think before we act, and to not be greedy as it can backfire on you. It teaches a valuable lesson that must be remembered especially in a monetary driven society.
Flying too close to the Sun...
“Daedalus and Icarus”
Level 3 question
Q: Does/Did Icarus’ death affect the outcome of Daedalus’ escape?
A:
While trying to escape from prison with his son, Daedalus looses his son (Icarus) to the depths of the sea when he flies too close to the sun (despite his father’s advisories). I believe this is the turning point of the story because Perdix’s death has now been avenged through his murderer’s greatest loss. “An eye for an eye”; the Greeks had a different way of life, especially for how they dealt with consequences. Connecting this saying to the deaths in this myth, is can be concluded that Daedalus was sure to pay for his crime by having something of equal value taken from him (not including his imprisonment by King Minos).
Icarus’ death not only affected that aspect of the story, but also changed the outcome of Daedalus’ escape. Shortly after his son’s death, he sought refuge with King Cocalus only to be found later by King Minos who had devised a plan to find out Daedalus’ whereabouts. Things may have been different for him if his son had followed his instructions; one can only imagine where the myth would take them if the death of Icarus had not taken place.
In conclusion, Daedalus’ son’s death changed the outcome of the story and because of that, humanity will always be able to learn from the myth of “Daedalus and Icarus”.
Can You Keep a Secret?
Is it possible to keep secrets from spreading?
Throughout time keeping information to oneself has been a very difficult task. In the myth of Midas, King Midas is given ears of an ass as punishment for disagreeing with Apollo. As he was King, Midas did not want anyone to know of his horrible deformity, for this reason he wore a turban and the only soul that knew of his plight was a servant that cut the King's hair. This servant was sworn to secrecy, but a secret of that magnitude was impossible to hold inside. For this reason the servant dug a hole and told the secret to the ground, the reeds that grew on that soil whispered the King's secret to passersby.
This story poses a very interesting question of the ability to keep a secret. In today's society it has become increasingly difficult to keep secrets due to modern forms of technology and a person's natural instinct to share secrets especially for personal gain. Unfortunately, people have a very difficult time keeping their problems to themselves and look for advice from their friends or other people that they trust, these people in turn are sworn to secrecy, but now they too carry this burden of something that they need to share. As these secrets are spread they are altered and often exaggerated causing many conflicts among friends, showing that in today's society it is seemingly impossible to keep a secret unless you do not share your confidential stories with anyone.
Throughout time keeping information to oneself has been a very difficult task. In the myth of Midas, King Midas is given ears of an ass as punishment for disagreeing with Apollo. As he was King, Midas did not want anyone to know of his horrible deformity, for this reason he wore a turban and the only soul that knew of his plight was a servant that cut the King's hair. This servant was sworn to secrecy, but a secret of that magnitude was impossible to hold inside. For this reason the servant dug a hole and told the secret to the ground, the reeds that grew on that soil whispered the King's secret to passersby.
This story poses a very interesting question of the ability to keep a secret. In today's society it has become increasingly difficult to keep secrets due to modern forms of technology and a person's natural instinct to share secrets especially for personal gain. Unfortunately, people have a very difficult time keeping their problems to themselves and look for advice from their friends or other people that they trust, these people in turn are sworn to secrecy, but now they too carry this burden of something that they need to share. As these secrets are spread they are altered and often exaggerated causing many conflicts among friends, showing that in today's society it is seemingly impossible to keep a secret unless you do not share your confidential stories with anyone.
Midas
does anyone deserve to be punished for being ignorant or stupid?
In my opinion the fact that someone is ignorant does not gives the right for other people to punished this person, I think that others should look at this person and offer themselves to teach and to make that human a better person and a better thinker. Midas was a foolish king, so ignorant that when he had the chance to ask for anything he asked for the golden touch, realizing later that it was a curse. He was later forgiven for his foolishness and he washed the gift away. He then later was eternally punished because he did not had good taste in music and he thought the nymph's music was better than the God's music. I realize that the God's were the most important figures in their society, but I think instead of punishemnt with donkey's ears forever, why not teach him about what he does not know, that way he would learn much more.
In my opinion the fact that someone is ignorant does not gives the right for other people to punished this person, I think that others should look at this person and offer themselves to teach and to make that human a better person and a better thinker. Midas was a foolish king, so ignorant that when he had the chance to ask for anything he asked for the golden touch, realizing later that it was a curse. He was later forgiven for his foolishness and he washed the gift away. He then later was eternally punished because he did not had good taste in music and he thought the nymph's music was better than the God's music. I realize that the God's were the most important figures in their society, but I think instead of punishemnt with donkey's ears forever, why not teach him about what he does not know, that way he would learn much more.
what's the difference between arrogance and determination?
In this story of Daedalus and Icarus, both are stuck on the island of crete and are in desperate need to escape from the labyrinth which daedalus created. however the king of Minos, who blamed the two for the escape of Theseus. Lucky Pasishae remebering of daedalus great deeds unchained the two in order for them to escape the labyrinth. Both Daedalus and Icarus both are determinted to escape the island, they used feathers and seams of wax to put together wings to help the the escape of the island crete. Although the two are determinted to flee the island, Iscarus(son of Daedalus) does not take the escape as seriously as his father does. When they do leave the island, Iscarus flys to high into the sky melting the wax on his wings and falling to his doom.
How to voice an opinion
In the myth of King Midas, a competition is held between Apollo, the sun god who possesses a great gift for music, and Pan, a country god of lesser importance and lesser musical talent. When the mountain god Tmolus deems Apollo to be the master musician, King Midas, a spectator to the competition, argues that since he preferred Pan's country music, the decision was unjust. Midas is punished by Apollo for exercising "poor taste and even poorer judgement." Midas was a foolish king and by no means a musical scholar, with little understanding of the music of the gods. Despite this, he insisted that Tmolus was wrong, and that he was right.
Should an opinion be voiced if the speaker doesn't understand the subject, and if so, how?
Of course, everyone has a right to varied thought and opinion, and is welcome to share with others. Everyone does not, however, have the right to assume their own correctness. When opinions are voiced, opinions of others must be respected; sometimes we can even learn from the opinions of those more knowledgeable than ourselves. Midas, who pitted his own sentiments against those with experience and understanding of the nuances of music, would have been wiser to not weigh not only what he knew (the aesthetic appreciation of music) but also what he didn't know (technique, level of difficulty, mastery of an instrument) before formulating his opinion.
When one wishes to voice an opinion on a subject he knows little about, he must first distinguish whether or not there is merit to his opinion. In Midas' case, he found the country ditty that Pan played more pleasing to the ear. Instead of insisting that he was right and expecting universal acceptance of his opinion, he should have justified why he believed he was correct while also inviting others to share the reasons behind their own beliefs. It is a win-win situation; while expressing your sentiments to others and spurring them to consider your justifications, you also become more educated on the subject you are ignorant of by hearing the opinions of those more educated than you.
Should an opinion be voiced if the speaker doesn't understand the subject, and if so, how?
Of course, everyone has a right to varied thought and opinion, and is welcome to share with others. Everyone does not, however, have the right to assume their own correctness. When opinions are voiced, opinions of others must be respected; sometimes we can even learn from the opinions of those more knowledgeable than ourselves. Midas, who pitted his own sentiments against those with experience and understanding of the nuances of music, would have been wiser to not weigh not only what he knew (the aesthetic appreciation of music) but also what he didn't know (technique, level of difficulty, mastery of an instrument) before formulating his opinion.
When one wishes to voice an opinion on a subject he knows little about, he must first distinguish whether or not there is merit to his opinion. In Midas' case, he found the country ditty that Pan played more pleasing to the ear. Instead of insisting that he was right and expecting universal acceptance of his opinion, he should have justified why he believed he was correct while also inviting others to share the reasons behind their own beliefs. It is a win-win situation; while expressing your sentiments to others and spurring them to consider your justifications, you also become more educated on the subject you are ignorant of by hearing the opinions of those more educated than you.
Gold, Midas, Greed.
Does greed always overcome?
Greed is something that overcomes you without even realizing it. Most people become greedy for money, jobs, desires, and needs. I think that it depends on the person’s attitude and outlook on life.
In the myth Midas the king shows greed by asking Dionysus to grant him the power to turn everything to gold. In this situation greed over]comes king Midas. He does learn from his lesson in the end.
Greed is something that overcomes you without even realizing it. Most people become greedy for money, jobs, desires, and needs. I think that it depends on the person’s attitude and outlook on life.
In the myth Midas the king shows greed by asking Dionysus to grant him the power to turn everything to gold. In this situation greed over]comes king Midas. He does learn from his lesson in the end.
Distorted Judgement
Why was King Midas's ability to judge reality distorted?
Because of King Midas's high ranking as king, he took his thoughts and behaviours to the next level, to a level that was above all others. He saw himself as god-like and craved the possession of a gods quality and power. King Midas was bursting with a feeling of high self-importance before thinking about the reality and outcome of his actions or "touch".
Because of King Midas's high ranking as king, he took his thoughts and behaviours to the next level, to a level that was above all others. He saw himself as god-like and craved the possession of a gods quality and power. King Midas was bursting with a feeling of high self-importance before thinking about the reality and outcome of his actions or "touch".
Does Narcissus' punishment reflect on consequences of drug use?
Narcissus's punishment can reflect similarly the consequences of drug use. His punishment---turning into a narcissus flower and suffering---can reflect the pain of using narcotics. Just like Narcissus's love for himself caused him to grieve and destroy his mind, narcotics can also do just the same. No longer could Narcissus bare the sorrow of withdrawing from those around him such as Echo's love for him. Occurrences have shown how narcotics addicts reject those around them because of the feelings they loose and the unhealthy feelings they develop. Also as a drug user many become addicted after the first time using the certain drug; this is comparable to how Narcissus became addicted to himself after seeing his reflection for the first time. The captivation Narcisscus develops is beyond acceptable as he is totally unaware of the outside world. Like most drug addictions it doesn't end well; the addiction Narcissus had for himself lead to his demise. It is fitting that the flower Narcissus turns into is named Narcissus, meaning narcotics.
Confidant or egotistical?
In the myth, Narcissus and Echo, Narcissus is a character who falls in love with the reflection of his own face, developing a certain "self-love". He fell in love with himself and decided he couldn't fall in love with another, thus he then chose to kill himself. (This is an example of narcissism gone horribly wrong.)
Q: Is being narcissistic always a bad thing? Where is the line between confidance and overconfidance?
When thinking of narcissism, egotism, or overconfidance, often a negative connotation is implied. We think of people as being arrogant and full of themselves, but are we being too, perhaps, harsh on those who think of themselves as higher and simply better human beings than the people around them? There is no answer for this question, despite that the most common one would be most certainly "no".
People can think of themselves as better than others based on several factors, including intelligence, beauty, or wealth. Their high self-esteems are either based on what they think other people's perception of them is, or just facts. For example, if one is beautiful, they know it by hearing others say so, and if one is highly intellectual, such things as test scores and career choices can highly influence them in thinking of themselves as "higher quality" individuals. But do these people have the right to think in this fashion when they compare themselves with the ugliest, stupidest man next door? What if this man has enriched peoples' lives, given to the poor, and taken time out of his life to help those in need of his care? Is a beautiful, intelligent man more valuable than a caring, warm, affectionate man?
Q: Is being narcissistic always a bad thing? Where is the line between confidance and overconfidance?
When thinking of narcissism, egotism, or overconfidance, often a negative connotation is implied. We think of people as being arrogant and full of themselves, but are we being too, perhaps, harsh on those who think of themselves as higher and simply better human beings than the people around them? There is no answer for this question, despite that the most common one would be most certainly "no".
People can think of themselves as better than others based on several factors, including intelligence, beauty, or wealth. Their high self-esteems are either based on what they think other people's perception of them is, or just facts. For example, if one is beautiful, they know it by hearing others say so, and if one is highly intellectual, such things as test scores and career choices can highly influence them in thinking of themselves as "higher quality" individuals. But do these people have the right to think in this fashion when they compare themselves with the ugliest, stupidest man next door? What if this man has enriched peoples' lives, given to the poor, and taken time out of his life to help those in need of his care? Is a beautiful, intelligent man more valuable than a caring, warm, affectionate man?
Does Daedalus and Icarus discourage ambition?
Daedalus always strived for the best in whatever project he had most recently decided to tackle. He was extremely intelligent, and applied this intelligence most often to the fields of engineering, sculpture, architecture, and craftsmanship. His artwork amazed his fellow Greeks and made all previous sculptures obsolete.
It was not Daedalus's intelligence that set him apart from other Greeks-there were surely many smart Greeks in order to inaugurate modern civilization- it was his ambition. The ambition to be great led Daedalus to murder his own nephew Perdix, for fear that he would surpass Daedalus. After this foolish act, Daedalus had to seek refuge on the Island of Crete, where he was "treated with great respect because he was an inventor". Daedalus again got in trouble when he helped a King Minos' daughter save Theseus from a Labyrinth. Later on, he turned his knowledge to flying, "(an) idea never before explored by man". His punishment was the death of his son Icarus, who suffered from hybris, or overconfidence and flew too high.
The Greeks were the first modern thinkers, a people that encouraged questioning and insight. However, as this myth shows, not all Greeks felt this way. Daedalus was repeatedly punished for his overly ambitious ways: confinement to prison, losing his son, and eventually murder. Ultimately, his ambition was his downfall. It is not only this myth that shows this. In one of Plato's ancient philosophy plays, Socrates was brought to court for attempting to teach his knowledge of the world to students. Many other Greeks have been exiled or murdered for their offbeat thoughts and ambitions, but it was Daedalus perhaps, who suffered the worst fate.
It was not Daedalus's intelligence that set him apart from other Greeks-there were surely many smart Greeks in order to inaugurate modern civilization- it was his ambition. The ambition to be great led Daedalus to murder his own nephew Perdix, for fear that he would surpass Daedalus. After this foolish act, Daedalus had to seek refuge on the Island of Crete, where he was "treated with great respect because he was an inventor". Daedalus again got in trouble when he helped a King Minos' daughter save Theseus from a Labyrinth. Later on, he turned his knowledge to flying, "(an) idea never before explored by man". His punishment was the death of his son Icarus, who suffered from hybris, or overconfidence and flew too high.
The Greeks were the first modern thinkers, a people that encouraged questioning and insight. However, as this myth shows, not all Greeks felt this way. Daedalus was repeatedly punished for his overly ambitious ways: confinement to prison, losing his son, and eventually murder. Ultimately, his ambition was his downfall. It is not only this myth that shows this. In one of Plato's ancient philosophy plays, Socrates was brought to court for attempting to teach his knowledge of the world to students. Many other Greeks have been exiled or murdered for their offbeat thoughts and ambitions, but it was Daedalus perhaps, who suffered the worst fate.
Talent = Security?
Daedalus was "the master artisan" in Athens in his time, being a man of all talents: an architect, engineer, and sculptor all in one.His sister asked him to take her son Perdix as an apprentice, since Perdix was also very talented.
Instead, Daedalus murdered him, because he was envious.
He then was exiled to Crete to ultimately suffer the loss of his son.
MY QUESTION IS:
Do the possession of many skills give one security?
In Daedalus' case, knowing he is talented is not enough for him. In his mind, he has to be the only one who is talented in Athens, or else he will "die in obscurity". This proves Daedalus as insecure and childish, as well as greedy. The presence of any other genius in his world threatened him so much that he had to eliminate this possibility of being outshined. He then raised a child who wasn't smart enough to listen to his life-or-death instructions. There is no "golden mean" for Daedalus.
My answer would be no. Being skilled in a particular area only increases your insecurity. The only way to go from the top of the mountain is down.
This makes us think about people who are horribly insecure, even though they are amazing at sports or do very well in school. They could lose it at any moment. I would conclude that those who are talented bear the burden of constant fear.
Can superior intelligence be a negative thing?
Daedalus was the smartest man on the island (Crete) and wanted to do something no other man had accomplished. Although being a great artist ,Daedalus envied his nephew's superior inventiveness and became obsessed with fear that his nephew would outshine him. Therefore leading him to pushing him off the top of Athena's temple on the Acropolis. When king Minos learned of an escape from prison, he blamed Daedalus. Being the architect and engineer he was , his goal was to create wings for himself in order to fly out of the prison he and his young son ,Icarus, got imprisoned in. This made Daedalus weary of Crete, and he wanted to return to his native land. Knowing Minos (The king of Crete) can prevent escape from land and the sea, he thougth the only way for his escape is through the air.
He was so determined to get him and his son Icarus out of prison , he persevered and finished his project which were wings in order to fly above the land and the water. Knowing it is to dangerous to go to close to the sun or else the glue can melt and cause the feathers to fall of the wing and would send him into the water were he would get swallowed by the sea. Not listening to his father Icarus went to close to the sun causing him to fall into the sea and drown.
This shows even he was so smart to create the wings and get him and his son to fly out of the prison. He caused his sons death because of his Intelligent idea even though it was too dangerous. This shows it doesn't matter how intelligent you are you cant always hide from danger, in fact you can cause things to be more dangerous then the really are. Example. instead of just staying in prison ,he decided to put his sons life in jeopardy in order to have the enjoyment/success of his invention.
He was so determined to get him and his son Icarus out of prison , he persevered and finished his project which were wings in order to fly above the land and the water. Knowing it is to dangerous to go to close to the sun or else the glue can melt and cause the feathers to fall of the wing and would send him into the water were he would get swallowed by the sea. Not listening to his father Icarus went to close to the sun causing him to fall into the sea and drown.
This shows even he was so smart to create the wings and get him and his son to fly out of the prison. He caused his sons death because of his Intelligent idea even though it was too dangerous. This shows it doesn't matter how intelligent you are you cant always hide from danger, in fact you can cause things to be more dangerous then the really are. Example. instead of just staying in prison ,he decided to put his sons life in jeopardy in order to have the enjoyment/success of his invention.
Monday, September 14, 2009
From "Daedalus and Icarus"
"Misfortunes often provoke ingenious solutions."
Daedalus declares this when wondering just how he will escape Crete.
This is an interesting thought because it reminds us that we must find ourselves in a rut before we can ponder, discover, and thus invent something new.
Also, it reminds us that we will always be in a metaphorical rut, because, for humans, nothing is ever enough - wealth, technology, beauty, personal comfort - our search for the top of the mountain never ceases. As people we are perpetually reaching forward.
Daedalus declares this when wondering just how he will escape Crete.
This is an interesting thought because it reminds us that we must find ourselves in a rut before we can ponder, discover, and thus invent something new.
Also, it reminds us that we will always be in a metaphorical rut, because, for humans, nothing is ever enough - wealth, technology, beauty, personal comfort - our search for the top of the mountain never ceases. As people we are perpetually reaching forward.
C.S. Lewis on Myth: "discovering reality"
C.S. Lewis wrote a review of J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings when it was first published; in the review he comments on “the value of myth.”
“The value of myth is that it takes all the things we know and restores to them the rich significance which has been hidden by ‘the veil of familiarity’… If you are tired of the real landscape, look at it in a mirror. By putting bread, gold, horse, apple, or the very roads into a myth, we do not retreat from reality: we rediscover it. As long as the story lingers in our mind, the real things are more themselves. This book (Tolkein’s) applies the treatment not only to bread or apple but to good and evil, to our endless perils, our anguish, and our joys. By dipping them in myth we see them more clearly.”
C.S. Lewis. Essay Collection and Other Short Pieces. London: Harper Collins, 2000
“The value of myth is that it takes all the things we know and restores to them the rich significance which has been hidden by ‘the veil of familiarity’… If you are tired of the real landscape, look at it in a mirror. By putting bread, gold, horse, apple, or the very roads into a myth, we do not retreat from reality: we rediscover it. As long as the story lingers in our mind, the real things are more themselves. This book (Tolkein’s) applies the treatment not only to bread or apple but to good and evil, to our endless perils, our anguish, and our joys. By dipping them in myth we see them more clearly.”
C.S. Lewis. Essay Collection and Other Short Pieces. London: Harper Collins, 2000
Monday, September 7, 2009
Value of Mythology
Why has classical mythology endured? The belief in the gods on Mount Olympus has faded into history, yet human beings remain fascinated by the heroic deeds and infamous behaviour of Greek gods and goddesses, men and monsters. Donna Rosenberg suggests that “Myths have continued to capture the imagination and the soul of man for thousands of years because they depict and reveal behaviour and problems common to all human beings.”
Stating that myths depict “problems common all human beings” seems self-contradictory and paradoxical; when was the last time three goddesses asked our advice on who is the fairest? How many times have we been asked to design a labyrinth to imprison a king’s bull-headed son? Paradoxical is an understatement. Absurd is perhaps more accurate.
To evaluate myths on such criteria as “realism” or “accuracy” or adherence to the “laws of nature” is to miss the point of myths altogether. Rosenberg continues,
“With little interest in scenic detail or historical background, the myths immediately plunge into a human situation. They use a specific event, such as the entrance of a wild animal, a cataclysmic event, or a human challenge, to examine how man reacts to the problem of living. Through the actions of individuals, who are always portrayed in human terms even when they are divinities, the myths reveal the nature of man.”
The central point is that myths reveal the nature of human beings when faced with temptation, obstacles or injustice of any kind. Myths are perhaps the clearest means by which we can see ourselves. Compared to other forms of story, myths lack all the distractions of plot, poetic language and elements realism; the clothes and fat of story are pealed away, and the exposed skeleton of man’s fundamental and universal nature is laid bare.
Rosenberg concludes her essay by stating that “myths reveal eternal truths about the nature of man and his quests in life. They reflect attitudes and feelings that are common to all men, in any time. Artists and writers constantly allude to them and recreate them as they explore the relationships between man and man, man and society, and man and God.”
Quotes taken from Donna Rosenberg “Value of Mythology” Mythology and You
Stating that myths depict “problems common all human beings” seems self-contradictory and paradoxical; when was the last time three goddesses asked our advice on who is the fairest? How many times have we been asked to design a labyrinth to imprison a king’s bull-headed son? Paradoxical is an understatement. Absurd is perhaps more accurate.
To evaluate myths on such criteria as “realism” or “accuracy” or adherence to the “laws of nature” is to miss the point of myths altogether. Rosenberg continues,
“With little interest in scenic detail or historical background, the myths immediately plunge into a human situation. They use a specific event, such as the entrance of a wild animal, a cataclysmic event, or a human challenge, to examine how man reacts to the problem of living. Through the actions of individuals, who are always portrayed in human terms even when they are divinities, the myths reveal the nature of man.”
The central point is that myths reveal the nature of human beings when faced with temptation, obstacles or injustice of any kind. Myths are perhaps the clearest means by which we can see ourselves. Compared to other forms of story, myths lack all the distractions of plot, poetic language and elements realism; the clothes and fat of story are pealed away, and the exposed skeleton of man’s fundamental and universal nature is laid bare.
Rosenberg concludes her essay by stating that “myths reveal eternal truths about the nature of man and his quests in life. They reflect attitudes and feelings that are common to all men, in any time. Artists and writers constantly allude to them and recreate them as they explore the relationships between man and man, man and society, and man and God.”
Quotes taken from Donna Rosenberg “Value of Mythology” Mythology and You
History as Story
“History is a narrative, a story; history is concerned foremost with major themes, even as it recognizes the significance of many fascinating digressions. Because history is largely about how and why people behave as they do, it is also about patterns of thought and belief. Ultimately, history is about what people believe to be true…”
Robin W. Winks “Preface” The Ancient Mediterranean World
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
