Posts tagged mythology
Video Games, God, and Creationism.
There is something remarkable about video games. The sheer scope of what can be done even in the simplest of senses is astounding. Frogger even presented you with a universe (however small) where you interacted with a moving environment and dealt with ever present adversity. From there it has gotten all the more complicated, with creatures and characters becoming more and more lifelike. Spore even presented an entire universe that was diverse, sure the game play was as stale as year old bread, but it was a diverse universe regardless.
So I’ve been thinking, relatively recently, about what this plays in the understanding of creationism. Creatures in video games are alive, but they are alive just because, the creator said they are alive and thusly they are alive. There are no complex mechanics within their bodies, they are solid blocks that function just because. They are held to the ground not by gravity but instead because the creator says they are held to the ground. When they eat the food just vanishes, it doesn’t flow through a series of complex systems. The sun above shines just because, there is no complex system of physics going on in the background.
These systems exist as they do because they were created. There is absolutely no reason to add organs, if you are creating all the laws of a universe you do not need them. There is no reason to make the sun complex, it can be just as beautiful as our own just because. Indeed the suns in Spore are stunning. Water can be gorgeous just because, trees can be there just because, and indeed all live can exist just because. It doesn’t have to degenerate, there is no necessity for cancer, and with the proper knowledge even intelligence can exist just because. It does not require an incredibly complicated interconnected system to function, it can just be. Yes sure the code can be a little complicated but even that gets ever more streamlined as the understanding of creating grows for people. There is nothing stopping us from making something ultimately incredibly and infinitely simple but time.
To me this is the big problem with creationism. It is not to say that a creator couldn’t just be very terrible at their job, that’s true, perhaps they added in a bunch of systems because they are batshit stupid. That’s fine and I can accept that. However it could not go hand in hand with being all powerful, all knowing, or all anything. These sort of mistakes are almost below human, they are insanely complicated mechanics to pull off tricks that could be as easy as a single switch. The sun is the sun because it is the sun and it glows because it is the sun. There should be no underlying mechanics beyond that. If there is that is a very distinct example of poor coding.
"Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away."
– Antoine de Saint-Exuper
So that is my problem I think. We exist in a fantastically imperfect universe and are fantastically imperfect beings. For each reason there is a previous reason and for each of those reason their exists a previous reason. All of these are unnecessary and should really boil down to “because”. The problem is that our universe does not function on a single “because” yet we try to explain it as such outside of science. That to me shows a severe disconnect between fantasy and reality.
To think, that sort of thought all stemming from a bout of World of Warcraft. Goes to show that gaming really is rotting my brain.
God Vs. The Devil: A Thought Experiment.
It is often said that God sent the Devil to Hell as punishment for defying him and attempting to overthrow the kingdom of Heaven. Sure this makes absolutely no sense at all but lets just run with it and assume that it does. So with this in mind the Devil has established a very powerful trait, the Devil defies God. This fact enrages the Lord and thusly he reacts win the same manner as any Tyrant and banishes the Infidel.
The story goes that the Devil is behind all the pain we go through. Sure Eve tricked Adam into eating the Apple but it was the Snake (Devil) that tricked her. So the idea stretches on to say that the Devil is hurting all people to get back at God for being an asshole who can’t take a little insurrection.
I would think that there is a much easier way to get back at God. In fact an action that would be so infuriating that there would likely have to be a new even worse punishment (perhaps being made non existent). This would be not harming people, or even worse still helping them. In doing so the Devil would be defying God once again and would create a system where Heaven would be depleted of its members and the Devil would then essentially own his own Heaven. It would infuriate the one asshole he never could get a long with and it would absolve him of doing exactly what his old leader demanded.
What I find almost incomprehensible is the idea that the Devil has not already thought this up. Considering the fact that I am merely a mortal and the Devil was originally an Angel of Heaven (the top angel wasn’t it). This leads me to ask the question of whether or not the Devil (if existent) is actually already doing this. If this is the case then it follows to ask who is causing all the pain in the world?
What better way to get people into your following than to hurt those around you and put the blame on someone else. It is entirely possible that God, being defied by Satan again, has no other option but to hurt people in order to maintain the belief that Satan is harming folks and to perpetuate the system God originally put in place to get people into the club.
Now this might sound preposterous however it really does fall on some pretty simple facts. These tactics have been used in Governments in Human History and it has been proven that the best way to Infuriate someone you can’t kill is to disobey them and to showcase just how powerless they actually are.
Also doesn’t help that all of the mass murders in the Bible were perpetuated by God. Unless someone found a verse that says that the Devil was killing innocent babies, creating mass floods, and murdering hundreds of thousands of people to prove a point.
“…how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go”
I’m sure I’ve quoted this enough times that it looks like I’d sleep with Galileo or at the very least take him to dinner (which I surely would…dinner that is). This phrase is, to me, one of the most powerful statements in the history of civilized man. The full line is "The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go."
While I am known for my rather callous feelings towards religion. This is not the goal of this post and indeed 99% of my posts are not trying to butcher the faithful upon a pedestal. What I’m here to discuss today especially is what religion cannot do and will never be able to do.
There has never and will never be a scientific use for faith. All of the benefits that people get medically from being religious have been seen with equal success in merely positive people. It provides absolutely no aid to any real world field of science. This is no a negative to faith, because it was never meant to do such a thing (or at least I don’t believe it ever outwardly advertised such), however in modern day it is a huge flaw that is overlooked by many who have vendettas against certain scientific beliefs.
Obviously to many this is a post in response to intelligent design, formerly known as creationism, and even before that known by 4-5 names. As was stated in a very good book I’ve been reading (“only a theory”) it would appear that more often than not religion is not trying to explain how something works but instead is trying to merely get credit for the something.
You cannot discover how malaria spreads, why the suns light gives people skin cancer, nor can it even explain why people cannot breath underwater. We didn’t decode the human genome with a single bit of guidance by any book of faith nor did we make it to the moon through the discoveries found in any scripture.
There will never be a time when faith can properly function as a scientific tool and likewise there will never be a time when science can function properly as a tool of faith. Each is by its very roots incompatible with the other. This is not to say you cannot be a faithful scientist, that is a scientists who for whatever reason has religious convictions, but neither will benefit the other. They exist in solitude from one another and that is by no means a bad thing.
The danger is when we make the mistake of assuming that faith can save our biological selves. We do not need another era of trephinations to remind us of what happens when we fight that truth. So as many have, much more eloquently than I, this is a modest request to cease and desist with the incessant attempts to use faith as a tool of science. In the end it helps no one and creates various problematic and violent situations.
Well that’s it for today, I will likely discuss the book linked above once I finish it. It is fantastic though and roughly 50% of the way through it I suggest anyone read it who has the ability to do so.
The Devil Dilemma
First I’m sure there is a book with this title, its alliteration that really works well between the two words. However I am probably talking about something entirely different. Also I got a big box of magic cards yesterday and not only did I miss myth busters because of the excitement but I also forgot to update. Talk about a brain overload. At any rate.
As I’ve stated before I tend to think that god (was) is a terrible parent. Put in basically the simplest possible parenting situation God failed terribly and theoretically it was this failure that lead to absolutely every tragedy that has ever unfolded. Hundreds of thousands of women still die every year to childbirth, that’s a single problem that can be compounded with hundreds of thousands of others that cost the lives of millions. But I’m digressing, when we look at the case of God and Parenting the introduction of the Devil comes into play.
The serpentine form of the Devil coaxed the children like Adam and Eve into devouring the fruit of Knowledge and thus getting them nixed from the garden of Eden. Now this is a prime example of the influential powers of the devil, a being above humanity in power and knowledge (anyone wanting to disagree with that is going to need to get their Ego checked). So we go from the events that ejected the two and the punishment they (and consequently every human after them) received.
So if in the case of two humans God could not be active enough to help hinder the actions of the devil in persuading God’s children (IE. Humans) how on Earth does anyone reasonably assume that with billions upon billions that God is anywhere near capable to deal with humanity? Especially when between the two (apparently) the Devil has had far more widespread influence. You have huge ‘false’ religions, major wars, endless civil struggles, death and disease across all edges of the world, and every form of government is rife with corruption of varying degrees. Throughout all this each Religion has thought they were the correct one and cite beings who have thought they spoke with God.
However it is impossible to know if it was God or the Devil influencing any of these people. In fact who is to say that Two Millennia ago it was not the Devil walking the land preparing the world for a future of strife, death, and persecution because of his ‘divinity’? It seems like a wild statement, and indeed it is, but this is a wild topic. There is absolutely no way of knowing whether any event you’ve dealt with or in any way been a part of was influenced by the devil or not, without first admitting that you are more brilliant and perceptive than Angels themselves. I’m sure however that such egotism would only be welcome in one realm of the afterlife and its hardly the one that people are shooting for most times.
If this is the case it would finally help me understand the idea of Blind Faith. What tool is more destructive than convincing people that they should follow the words of a many times translated storybook over the obvious realities of the world. Of course this also puts us in a pickle of wondering who, if anyone, is the devil. Is it me? Is it the person sitting next to you. Is it the President of France (I doubt it is any of these but I figured I’d ask)?
We sit on a planet that is not a perfect sphere, in a Solar System we are not the center of, warmed by a huge continuous explosion that is not without blemish, and there are explanations for every previous event that is historically provable and was once thought to be the work of divine intervention. It would appear to me that as time progresses more of various texts are found to be wildly incorrect, which has always felt like a misguidance. Who would desire more to misguide you than some unexplainably selfish being of once divine nature? Other than maybe Corporations (Badumpish).
How much is too much?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30890934/
Now it isn’t an isolated incident, there are nations that have been battling for hundreds if not thousands of years merely because of a disagreement in literature. I know people say that even without faith we will still have conflict but I tend to think that once people are fighting over which is better, star trek or star wars, we’ll be able to step back and stop it much easier.
In my mind I wonder though, what benefits do religion give you that you couldn’t acquire by simply being a positive human being? Neither is necessary to have the other so this is not a case of parsing how you could do one without the other.
Just how much dependency on a belief is too much is another thing I’d be interested in knowing. When you ignore simple medical care and allow your child to die, when you rush to develop nuclear weaponry simply to attack another group of people who disagree with you on a single aspect of your life. At what point do we step back and just say “Whoa”…likewise just when will I start using question marks again to end my questions?
That’s where I stand though, I’m just not grasping the gain. The benefit of glorifying death over life. For now I just read the newspaper and see event after event that is pretty upsetting. Taking course after course where there is a single theme that holds true.
However amidst it all I’m pretty positive about life, that to me is what counts. In case you were curious
.
Metaphysics Finale (Part 4 of 4)
With my final coming tomorrow it appears it is time to finish the last of the topics to prepare for what will likely be a very unhappy examination. Seeing as what is the proper way of achieving an A (Carbon copying what the professor says to the book) is not how I like to learn I’m probably looking at another C.
That mini rant out of the way lets collect the 4 parts in a series of links for you:
Part 1:
Formulating and Explaining: Determinism.
Presenting, Explaining, and Evaluating: An Argument Against Moral Responsibility.
Part 2:
Presenting, Explaining, and Evaluating: The Kid Patriot Argument Against Soft Determinism.
Formulating and Explaining: Hard Determinism, Soft Determinism, Indeterminism.
Part 3:
Formulating and Explaining: Volitional Indeterminism.
Presenting, Explaining, and Evaluating: Volitional Indeterminism, The Ernest Patriot Argument Against Simple Indeterminism, The Vera Patriot Argument Against.
Part 4 (Below):
Formulating and Explaining: The Theory of Agency, Fatalism, Theism, and Atheism.
Presenting, Explaining, and Evaluating: What I take to be the best argument against The Theory of Agency, The Argument for Fatalism, What I take to be the best argument for Theism, and What I take to be the best argument for Atheism.
— — — — — — —
So with that out of the way lets begin with a slew of formulations and explanations!
Externally Determined is defined as A being made physically necessary by events outside of A’s agent.
Example: Once you have jumped it is Externally Determined that you will come back to Earth. (via Gravity)
Libertarian Actions are defined as Actions that are not Externally Determined and are caused by their agent.
Example: The act of jumping is not externally determined (you don’t have to jump) and doing so is caused by the agent (you).
These definitions are important to help further understand the Theory of Agency:
The Theory of Agency
(1) There are some Libertarian Actions.
(2) People are acting freely whenever they perform Libertarian actions.
(3) People are morally responsible anytime they perform Libertarian actions.
The first tenant of Agency states that not all actions in the universe are forced by nature or natural law. It is not a universal statement and because of this even if a single action is Libertarian that would entail that some sum of actions are libertarian thusly making the first true. Secondly by the definition of Libertarian actions any action performed by oneself without external demands is a free actions. Finally the last tenant states that when you act of your own agency without outside forces you are morally responsible.
The best objection to the theory of Agency is the one of Unintelligibility. Which looks as follows.
The Mystery Objection to the Theory of Agency
(1) The Idea of Agent Causation is Unintelligible.
(2) if (1), then the Theory of Agency is Unintelligible.
———————————
(3) The Theory of Agency is Unintelligible.
The above argument states that the concept of Agent Causation is unintelligible. A simple example is the phrase “The baseball broke the window.” Whenever people say such a thing what they really mean is that the child who hit the baseball in the direction that they did broke the window. However even this statement is missing out on various other agents at play in the situation. Our languages functional level is not at a range of detail to properly detail a proper Agent Causation paradigm. Because of this any attempt to address the Agent Causation omits important factors that render it unintelligible. Furthermore in order to make the concept intelligible it requires the omission of a confounding amount of information. Intuitively when examining the idea of agency we find ourselves being very ambiguous.
Next we have the wonderful world of f..f…Fatalism! *gouges out his own eyes* Ok. Calm down Rico…We’ll make this quick because I’ve already ranted about this particular topic for 2 full days before.
Fatalism
(1) There exists now a set of propositions that explains exactly what might happen in the future.
(2) All propositions are either true or false.
(3) If (1) and (2), there exists a set of true propositions already depicting the future.
(4) If there now exists a set of true propositions the future is already Unavoidable.
——————————
(5) The future is Unavoidable.
The first tenant states that if you were to take every possible set of events and combine it in inverse manner with every other possible event that inevitably one of the near infinitely many possible outcomes would cover all of what might happen in the future. In Layman’s the idea is that you start with TFF, then TTF, then TTT, and so on until you’ve hit every combination. Except that you have unimaginably large quantities of lines instead of I believe the 9 possible from a series of 3 events. Properly written all propositions are either true or false, however it goes further than that, all propositions are false until true. This is the staple behind the concept of sanity, when you start believing in false propositions you are clinically insane. The third tenant states that there exists now a set of true propositions, it is only a half true statement. There exists now a set of propositions that will be true in the future. Tenant four simply states that if we already have defined our future than our future is unavoidable. Originally I felt that this argument was valid and perhaps sound. Now I would state that it is merely valid, IF all the above lines were true the conclusion would be true. However the above lines are not all true.
Quite simple the second Tenant is false (or at least gravely misstated). All propositions are false until they become true. While there exists a set of false propositions that will someday all be true that is only because there is a set of false propositions for all possible outcomes. Because of this it is impossible for one set of these propositions to not be filled entirely. That is the nature of infinity, it covers all possible ranges and because of this it governs absolutely nothing. The future is in no way unavoidable, however a future is. But really there is nothing fatalist about a future in that manner, unless you take the point that you’ll likely die someday. But that’s an philosophical thought for another day. For those who want a further explanation the breaking of the second tenant likewise breaks the third and fourth tenant. Leaving Fatalism with only a single tenant (tenant 1) that in no way concretely leads to tenant 5.
Now lets move on to the mightiest of all arguments (supposedly) the arguments of theism and atheism.
Theism: There is a god.
Atheism: There is no god.
There it was good to get that out of the way. Oh…wait you wanted more? Like a definition of what god is perhaps? Alright.
God as we will use it in the following arguments is a contingent being that is omniscient, Omni benevolent, and omnipotent. However it pays to define these four terms as well.
A Contingent thing is something that exists necessarily.
Omniscience is defined as knowing every true proposition. The reasoning behind this definition is a being knowing that red is green (a false proposition) is nonsensical and pointless. It is easy to argue that there is no reason to believe that God doesn’t know that as well but lets stick with what will keep the professor from grading me down
.
Omnipotence is defined as being able to bring about any possible state of affairs. For those of you firing off the “God creating something larger than god can lift” this was meant to snuff out your hopes and dreams. Frankly I don’t see how a being can create something from nothing (IE exist in a universe where natural laws don’t exist) and yet cannot do other impossible things in this realm where all things are possible. But again…I have to omit that problem because I’ll see a big D on my final.
Omni benevolence is defined as always preferring what is best for the world. Why such an ambiguous definition? Well when you have 150k children a year (in the US alone I believe) for unknown reasons being still born or having other birth defects that lead to lifelong pain, early death, and terrible things like heart existing outside the infants chest you need to say that its not out of love. Those babies needed those hearts outside their bodies to help them remember they are born sinners. ANYWHO…those are the important definitions.
I apologize in advance because the next part requires me to take the best argument that was given in class to defend Theism. Don’t get me wrong I have heard some wonderful arguments but the following pool of options is terrible. So if you have a better one I’m sure I’ve heard it before and frankly I might even like it (I don’t agree with it but I may like it). So without further adieu here is the best argument for Theism from our class.
The Traditional Cosmological Argument
(1) Many contingent things exist.
(2) Every contingent thing has a cause.
(3) if (1) and (2), then there was a necessary first cause.
(4) If there was a necessary first cause, then there is a God.
— — — — — — —
(5) There is a God.
Indeed there are many contingent things existing in our universe. It is the nature of contingency that gives us the balanced chaos that surrounds us. For everything that is contingent, that means that there must be something that happened to cause that thing to exist, thusly every contingent thing has a cause. If the first two tenants are true then it seems apparent that there must be a first cause. If there was a first cause it must have been god.
Now I’m not sure if this is a valid statement. I do not see how the first three lines lead definitively to a god in the fourth. Because of this I personally will say that it is invalid. Unfortunately this is a problem with all the arguments that I had available. They essentially say something like “Plastic is used in some bags, if this is true then there are planets made of marshmallows.” I do not see how the first observation leads to the second assumption.
I would further query as to why it is acceptable for God to be an uncaused cause and yet in that same breath say the universe cannot be. Likewise if nothing can be an uncaused cause what caused God to exist? We tend to look for causes for all physical things and yet nobody asks what the reasoning behind the lord (or any god) existing is in the first place. Why would some thinking being just exist? It seems reasonable to assume that a stone can exist, all it does is exist. Yet for an organism to exist in all known cases means it has a purpose, the most universal of purposes being to extend its genetic code for as long as possible. What is any God’s reasoning for existing? Is it reproducing? If not why exist at all? An eternity without any real non manufactured purpose seems exceptionally upsetting. Might explain the previously mentioned birth defects however (just a very bitter individual maybe).
The next and final piece to this long winded post is the best argument we were given for atheism. I in no way picked a poor argument above and then took the best argument below just to make theist look like fools, it was sort of forced upon me. Had I had the option I would have taken some amazing argument for Theism, unfortunately in my course it was entirely absent and I apologize to anyone feeling short changed.
To begin the final piece you need a short definition.
Principle for Ontological Parsimony: It is irrational to believe in the existence of anything unless the overall evidence supports your claim.
For those keeping count this is essentially the previous point about propositions, it is literally and definitively insane to believing in a false proposition as true.
The Argument from Ontological Parsimony
(1) There is no good empirical evidence for the existence of God.
(2) There is no a priori evidence for the existence of God.
(3) If (1) and (2), it is irrational to believe in the existence of God.
— — — — — — —
(4) It is irrational to believe in God.
The support for tenant one comes from the fact that there is no repeatable test that can provide evidence for the existence of God. Likewise with tenant two there is no a priori evidence for the existence and as time moves on and technology advances to give people a better perspective of the world and surrounding universe the previously considered a priori evidence “Like our existence at the center of the universe and other false beliefs.” is devolving and vanishing. Finally the support for tenant three is that if you are believing in anything that the overall evidence does not support you are doing so irrationally.
It is important to note that this does not state that God exists or does not Exist, it merely states that believing in the existence of a being that there is no physical evidence supporting the existence of is irrational. Indeed all evidence that is physical is contradicted by other equally supported evidence (such as various religious texts) and all physical events that are used to support the evidence fall apart under scrutiny (such as the flood). The latter being explained by the fact that in early civilizations people lived near areas that were prone to having large floods and that if you had no access to cars or horses it would indeed appear that the entire world had flooded.
A good thought experiment is to look at the events in New Orleans and imagine how the native Americans would have explained it had they been in the center watching everything in all directions getting submerged beneath a massive wall of water. Or anyone who is victim to a large tsunami watching their friends, family, and some of the unfortunately contained livestock being consumed by a massive wave of water. Of course it appears the world has flooded.
So that’s it. I believe I’ve hit every topic that needs to be hit for the exam. Here is to hoping that this time around I don’t get a C. For those that noticed some inconsistencies with the Vera and Kid Patriot in my previous posts I will clarify.
Vera was supposed to simply be the volition of killing the president.
Kid Patriot was supposed to be the desire to kill the president.
Ernest was supposed to be the unfortunate victim of random events that lead to killing the president.
I hope that helps.
Adam and Eve: God was a terrible Parent
I think such a bold statement requires a bit of introduction so without further adieu here is “Adam and Eve” for dummies. I’ll then relate it with modern day and why I feel that God was a terrible parent.
For whatever reasons, God created man from dust (or whatever silicone based material you fancy) and then made a fancy garden. After this God created a whole bunch of animals, if it was badass and fun to be around the garden had it. However none of these animals made a good friend for Adam, not even the cute Siberian puppies
. Well God decided “Hey I got a great idea!” and knocked Adam out yanking out of Adam’s body one of his ribs (It was that one that the other ribs hated). From that rib God created the smoking hot Eve and set the two out into the garden to get with the multiplying and being fruitful. Now the rules were simple. “Alright you two. You can eat absolutely ANYTHING in the garden as long as you don’t eat from the garden of Good and Evil.” The two agreed and gleefully went around having fun. Indeed they were essentially utterly innocent (read: Gullible) adults.
Now, as you would expect, a Serpent either got into the garden or was made when God was going SimAnimals all over. That slick little bastard went up to Eve and slyly tricked her into eating from the tree of Good and Evil. Essentially the conversation went something like this: “Hey you should eat some of that fruit.” “But dad said we can’t eat from the Tree of Good and Evil.” “Well yeah I know but that isn’t the tree, its just like, a similar one.” “Oh coolio! *munches*”. At this point she chucks one over to Adam who is likewise interested. “Hey this is good fruit right?” “Yes. It’s safe.” So he gobbles it down and now the two can see evil, hate their bodies, and God pops in and kicks their asses out. Also God forces women to have painful childbirth, just to make sure the message hits home.
So for those confused on my point lets look at a modern example. You have a child, and you tell the child to not touch boiling pots. However you likewise do not tell the child exactly what a boiling pot looks like, you just say “all other pots are fine.” Now, you have no other job besides taking care of this child, however you leave a boiling pot on the stove and you go off to do whatever you are doing.
Now the neighbor is an asshole and he comes in and tells your young child that they should touch the boiling pot on the stove in the following manner: “Hey little Adam you should touch that shiny pot right there. Your parent said it was ok to touch pots.” “But isn’t that the boiling pot?” “Oh of course not silly. The boiling one is…ugh…over there.” To which your child yanks down the pot horrible scalding them across there entire body. Now you return to find your child scalded, would you then punish your child with child birth pains and life outside of your home, or would you punish the neighbor for fucking with your kid OR would you punish yourself for not paying attention to your only child?
This is not to say some ridiculously negligent creator doesn’t exist. But I would argue that if a deity like this cannot take care of two people, how on Earth do millions (if not Billions) of people honestly feel that this being is able to keep up with the everyday events of their life? Freedom of thought and action has nothing to do with proper protective care. This was nothing more than negligence that, given the powers of the parent involved, seriously requires involvement of some sort of inter existence court.
Just seems like a pretty poor case to punish all further generations for. It’s certainly been a problem I’ve had with the entire story for a while.
Comprehension: Color Blue Vs. God
It’s official I have apparently hit a point where I set off at least one persons matchbox. So I figured I’d write a post on this topic so that when they get angry and Google someday they end up here
. Likewise it provides all of you with something interesting (I hope) to read. Perhaps even a bit of redundancy once again if I brought it up before.
Theoretically since before the beginning of time (to some folks) there was an entity or perhaps entities that defied all forms of logic and decided to create something from the vast nothingness in all directions. Certainly an intro that would sell a couple of books methinks. What we are to take for granted is that something so amazingly vast, powerful, seemingly the pinnacle of all thought power and any other trait humanity finds valuable, a convenient coincidence is an entity that we, beings with noses less accurate than dogs, ears less accurate than bats, and eyes less accurate than a verifiable arcs worth of animals supposedly have good sense enough to just ‘know’ that something out there exists. However I put forth, if we can understand something as vastly powerful and infinitely old as a deity, theoretically we should be able to “in words” explain in good enough detail anything else that is lesser than such a being. For it would come to reason that absolutely anything lesser than god would be child’s play in our hands if we can indeed grasp the thought processes of something that wouldn’t even (one would surmise) belong to any realm of understanding we have, seeing as this being or beings can overwrite or at the very least create laws that all things must follow (and thusly is freakishly gifted in possible activities).
But I would like to take it a big step down, I realize that technologically its unfair to assume that we could explain any of the trillions upon trillions of things that exist outside of our senses. Sure we can’t see almost all life on Earth with our naked eye, but hey that’s just not as important as being able to sense the greatest form of life (well technically not alive in the conventional sense since living things are bound by natural law). It just seems incredibly naive of me to think that man can overcome arguably the greatest question that the universe has to offer yet cannot break down something as simple and elementary as color.
Indeed I would argue that until a language has the power and versatility to describe a base color, without any visual examples (like showing a blue shirt), to a person who has never seen or knows blue, that that same language is entirely incapable of describing something more complex than blue. You can say that a color is merely a frequency of light, but that does nothing to generate the same mental image of blue in others as you. It’s not to say God isn’t real (however my personal belief is pretty obvious) but I feel that it is wrong headed to think that “Yes we can understand God…that’s easy peezy. But color, now THAT’S complicated.”
How and Why the Trojan War Happened. (From a Mythological Standpoint)
Throughout my time in Greek Mythology (and now Tragedy) I’ve had a theory that has seen some pretty good support from the stories that have been left for us to examine. The problem I had before (other than a forced word count) was what the purpose of my theory was, I refuse to accept that anything happens ‘just because’ even if an explanation is merely a more detailed form of that response. Causes and Effects are wondrous things that keep me awake on many a night. The theory is that the Trojan war, much like (I feel) all wars before and after it, in the fact that it was inevitable given the events transpiring a while before it. However unlike modern world wars, wars on terror, and wars on rap music (down with yee!) this was a war laid out by the Greek gods themselves.
Who was involved? Physically on the spectrum of humans (and heroes) we likely can involve Hector, Heracles, Helen, Xanthus, Paris, Priam, Philoctetes, Laomedon, Ajax, Helen, Menelaus, Pandarus, and Patrocalus…woo yeah quite a few people most of which word feels are real names. But who amongst the gods are involved? As it stands I feel we can accuse Zeus, Apollo, Eris, Ares, Athena, Artemis, and likely anyone who placed their godly feet at the lands of either Athens or Troy.
So where does it all begin? Well I feel that we can safely start things with the wildly famous son of Zeus (one of many)-Heracles. For those who know a bit about Greek history it is quite obvious that Heracles was not physically a participant, he died a comfortable distance (in time) before the Trojan war. He never even met Paris, who would be the playboy largely accused for the Trojan war (perhaps unfairly), however he did meet and kill someone very important to Paris. Heracles killed a man by the name of Laomedon, who was the father of a man known as Priam, who consequently was the father of Paris. So many years before Paris was alive the involvement of godly entities in his bloodline was present.
I only mention this because it is by Hercules’ own bow and arrows handed down to Philoctetes, that will indeed poison and kill Paris. It would be (to me) ironic likewise that the very Zeus-like attitude of Paris "if it moves, and is sexy, mate with it" that would end up being the final nail in his coffin. A beautiful nymph that Paris originally found himself in the bed of (before his later rendezvous with Helen) could have easily cured him, however by breaking her heart he ended up dying outside the doors of her shack. A bit of a tangent but I found it funny that by acting like the most successful of Greek gods he would suffer such a terrible end. It may have had to do with the fact that Zeus’s own son had killed his grandfather, setting the precedent that their bloodlines did not peacefully sync. But back on track…
Returning back to the time preceding the Trojan war, there is a series of unfortunate (for the Greeks) events transpiring above the clouds. The events of the heroes below tie in like the string of the fates, this is not an accident by any means. This is likely because of the combined powers of Apollo and Prometheus (without whom it is blatantly obvious that the Greek gods would do terribly in their manipulative attempts). Anyone who thinks otherwise would be well to remember that Zeus, powerful enough to defeat his father (Kronos) who was himself powerful enough to defeat one of the original gods of the universe (Ouranos), could not even end the life of humanity (not for naught of trying either). With the previous piece of information in mind we move onto an event that I originally viewed as accidental but now feels very planned, much like the rest of the things you’ll read here. Zeus after a failed interrogation was (for reasons unknown) finally gifted with the information that had terrorized him for quite a while by a Titan known as Prometheus. Prometheus has arguably one of the greatest powers in the entire Greek universe, he can literally see the future, Prometheus is so powerful that unlike Apollo it would appear that Prometheus can even change the future. Prometheus knew that the lust of Zeus would inevitably cause him to bear a child that will be more powerful than him, much like he was the child that defeated his father, and his father was the child that defeated his grandfather. Perhaps on retrospect this is why Paris was defeated by his own lust, he did not have the forethought necessary to defeat a self destructive trait. More on that later.
Zeus would in his limited wisdom (granted greatly by the consumption of his first wife; Metis the goddess of Wisdom. Who was so wise that her essence would grow within Zeus and sprout from his head (with some assistance from his new Wife’s defunct son Hephaestus) as an entirely separate entity; Athena. I don’t think this was a deed that Zeus did actively, it seemed symbolic of his inability to grasp onto Wisdom (as an entity of raw power). It was with his limited wisdom and somewhat sly nature (still retaining some of his Daughter’s military tact) that he decided now knowing the target of his lust that he would marry her with some modern human. Surely doing so would protect him from his own groin from inevitably defeating him. The wonderful woman’s name was Thetis, a gorgeous sea nymph that would turn most male deities hearts to mush. The decision was to marry her to a man named Peleus, if memory serves he was your average farmer, while that might not be accurate the important information is that he’s merely mortal. A lucky mortal to say the least.
This wedding, much like the birth of Athena, was a huge deal. If you were a god worth mentioning you were invited to the wedding of Peleus and Thetis, in fact all the gods were invited to the wedding except for one, Eris, the Goddess of Discord. I thought at first this was because Zeus knew what she would do if she was invited, than overtime it hit me, it’s not that he knew what she would do had she been invited, he knew what she would do had she not been invited. Likely by discussing the situation with Apollo and/or (more likely) Prometheus, seeing as after the events of Prometheus bound the two had a wobbly but peaceful relationship (finally).
Poseidon’s gift to the wedding were two horses known as Xanthus and Barius, with (likely) the obvious knowledge from Prometheus that they’d play a large part in the upcoming war by the very powerful child that the couple would bear. Eris dropped the Apple of Discord into the wedding, this apple was said to be for the "fairest" at the wedding. It would initiate a scuffle between three goddess’ Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite. Zeus took the apple and handed it off to the human most like him, Paris. This is twofold, Zeus knows that only a complete fool blinded by lust would ever tell any number of Goddess’ (higher than 1) that they are fairer than those around them…short of perhaps getting to bed them all at once and he knew that Paris much like him was someone just horny enough to make such a foolish move.
If all of the gods were in agreement in the war of Athens and Troy the war would be extremely short lived, this was not the desire of the gods (to be explained soon). Aphrodite must like the Trojans was an entity more so of passion than thought (according to the Athenian gods). Zeus likewise knew that if offered power, wisdom, or sex that he’d choose a good lay in a second (albeit for him his own libido is what gave him a powerful Olympian family), likewise if he would so would Paris. The story played out just as he either assumed or was told by his partners. Hera told Paris she’d give him power, Athena told him she’d give him Wisdom, and Aphrodite told him she could get him laid so good he’d be cross eyed. Without a second thought he gave the apple to Aphrodite, at this point one of the world’s oldest (or should be) adages was unleashed. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. Except for maybe two woman…who are also goddesses. But I digress.
There are events in Tragedy that are remixed many times over and it is difficult to say which is the truer to its kin. But it is important to note that in the tragedy Iphigenia at Aulis, it is said that Artemis came down just before the death of Iphigenia (being sacrificed by her father) and replaced her with a deer. I feel that events like this were done to add a sense of dread to the war, to remind the humans that the war was unavoidable and that great tragedies would unravel during it, and after it.
Fast forward to the war. Unsurprisingly to anyone, Ares would join up with Aphrodite, not surprising because the two were very intimate. It’s difficult to say no to Aphrodite once you are in her bed. Nothing that unraveled during the Trojan was unplanned, nor was anything a surprise to the gods. This can and likely was in large part because of Prometheus, which may be paradoxical because he’s famous for protecting humanity. However perhaps he foresaw something far worse than the Trojan war had it not happened. Much like killing deer to make certain they don’t starve to death from overpopulation. Hector, much like Odysseus, and Achilles would not want to go to war. None of them were fond of Helen and more so none of them were fond with the idea of dying, it’s just not on the plate of most people, hero or not.
When Paris brought back Helen he had activated an Oath made by all of the men (or most) of Athenian alignment, their oath was that if she ever befell trouble that they’d come to her aid. As is shown in many tragedies related to the situation nobody believed that they’d ever have to actually to do anything about it. Agamemnon says in "Iphigenia at Aulis", Those foolish suitors swore that oath to Tyndareus in their longing to wed; but Hope was the goddess that led them on. Indeed these men all longed for a woman as beautiful as Helen and it was this wildly blind hope that led them to make such a ridiculous oath.
Tyndareus was most likely manipulated by some god, I know not which but considering the way all things fall into alignment it cannot be coincidence. When Paris and Menelaus attempted to settle the war peacefully there would be, much like modern wars, a single shot heard around the world that sparks a battle that costs many lives. That shot would be fired by Pandarus, the male form of Pandora, who is famous for being the first woman gifted by Zeus who would curse the world of Man with misfortune and grief. Pandarus likewise cursed the Greek world with a war of great casualties.
A second event happens when Hector attempts likewise to lessen the destruction and challenge any member of the Trojan people to a battle, whoever wins would (hopefully) take credit and perhaps be considered the victor. Ajax would take up the challenge and after a very impressive battle it ended with both deciding it was a draw and handing each other a gift, to Hector came Ajax’s girdle and to Ajax came Hector’s sword. Much like the bow of Achilles, these items would also have greatly important presence later in the war. Symbols of how peace amongst man cannot exist when their destruction is decided amongst the gods.
Apollo would come to the aid of Hector after Ajax felled him with a stone, and explained to him the morbid truth of the war (one side of the truth that is) that no good deed of god would be left without great punishment of a rival god. There would be no gift that did not end with tragedy. Indeed the gift from Hephaestus of Armor for Achilles, with which Patrocalus would wear to his death, was likely done with the knowledge that if Patrocalus the gem of Achilles’ heart were to die that the relatively level headed (for a warrior/hero) nature of Achilles would unravel and leave nothing but a destructive beast. A killing machine that is nigh unstoppable. Likewise the horses gifted well before, Xanthus and Barius, would also be greatly upset and aid Achilles in quick travel and great devastation. Hector would end up being the one that kills Patrocalus, and indeed he would find that the gift from Ajax would be used in his destruction (post mortem). Hector would add insult to injury by donning the armor of Achilles on himself after the murder of Patrocalus, essentially he was wearing the very skin of not only Achilles but Achilles greatest love, an act of Hubris that could not be erased. Hephaestus would then create a second set of armor for Achilles, again a gift from one cannot go without an evil.
Achilles’ rage was in no way masked, Hector would flee in terror around the city of Troy from Achilles. This symbolic chase was to exemplify the end of Troy and the conclusion of the goal of the Greek gods. For those who can’t possibly wait any longer I’ll explain once and for all (I wish) what the goal of the Trojan war was, quoted from the Greek tragedy Orestes by Euripides.
Apollo:
…
‘Twas I that saved her and snatched her from beneath thy sword at
the bidding of her father Zeus; for she his child must put on immortality,
and take her place with Castor and Polydeuces in the bosom of the
sky, a saviour to mariners. Choose thee then another bride and take
her to thy home, for the gods by means of Helen’s loveliness embroiled
Troy and Hellas, causing death thereby, that they might lighten mother
Earth of the outrage done her by the increase of man’s number. Such
is Helen’s end.
To those who catch the point here. Apollo states that Helen was created to cut the population of humanity that was dealing great levels of stress on the planet that supports them. In other words, we are the deer to the gods and they are trying to thin our numbers in order to protect us. A brutal strategy but one that historically has worked for certain with numerous animals. But back to the war since it’s very interesting to see how far this goes.
Athena, a fan of Achilles, would end up tricking Hector into stopping his fleeing (he was quite a runner) and because of her trickery Achilles would catch and slay Hector quite easily. The gift of the girdle to Hector would be the tool of his blasphemous post mortem treatment, Achilles in his passionate rage dragged the corpse of Hector around (with the aid of Barius and Xanthus) with the girdle he had been handed in good faith by Ajax. Just as the girdle would be the undoing of Hector, likewise the sword he had given Ajax would be the device that killed Ajax (once and for all). To make a long story short, Ajax jumped onto the sword himself and ended his life after an embarrassing event that I seem to remember was created by Athena. I digress like a drunk driver speeding on a thin road I apologize.
Interestingly this point is when Achilles transitions from Athena to Ares in his mindset, this perhaps an example of the worry the gods had gathered. If such a transition can happen so easily with one great man, what’s to say it wouldn’t happen with vast amounts of men? Supporting their decision to lessen the numbers of men (in modern day world wars this appears to have been a reasonable fear).
The Trojan War was planned many years before it unfolded by the Greek Gods, through the aid of powerful entities like Prometheus and Apollo the gods were able to take the most efficient form of control (death) and use it to help lessen the great and destructive numbers of man. As I stated before, this fear is well documented in our own history with entire cities suddenly vanishing beneath the great power of single bombs. We have now reached the period that the gods of old literature had feared to such a great degree that they created the most amazing conspiracy that I’ve ever read about.