What men like Karl Marx and Hanania fail to realize about the past is that the relationships between the noble and the commoner were beneficial to both parties. Everyone benefits. The only reason the noble was wealthier is because his responsibility was greater still. Even in the modern world, this is common sense (hence why a manager makes more than his employee). Indeed, the French Revolution didn’t happen because the masses woke up and broke from the “propaganda” in which they were fed, but because the people (specifically the Parisians, and in fact, many of the peasants opposed the revolution) felt their king had failed his duty to them.
An epic poem is designed to be performed. Again and again. The hearer hears what s/he hears - what s/he is capable of hearing. Agamemnon is no saint, but the King of Mycenae, capable of deceiving his wife and sacrificing his daughter. Achilles is vain and narcissistic - you wouldn't like him - but if you want to argue the point, come armed. Odysseus is but the king of a hill (well, a small island). He's a cunning bastard though and you don't want to cross him. Yes they are all part of a late bronze-age archipelagic aristocracy, but that's not what Homer is arguing for. He's just set down in writing a millennial story about humans and what they purportedly did. We take from it what we may.
I think you really nailed your critic towards Hanania with the keyword god-king. The revolte against the phenomenon of Asian despotism with their god emperors was one of the main narratives during the Persian wars in early 400s BC. Even up to now. But this despotism was ironically brought by Indo-European (or Indo-Aryan) Persians and not Mesopotamiens or Egyptians.
So not every Indo-Aryan ist an Angel😉
But my POV is that I do not realy like the never ending cycle of justification and search of a mythos within the long gone past. Searching for the healing formulas inside of ancient, authoritative texts to me slowly becomes tedious and repetive.
That's the old superstition of the lost paradise of the past and the core search for mythos of the right.
But whatever old text I read, doesn't matter if it's the Atrahasis or the Gilgamesh epos, Enuma Elish, the Rig Veda, the Bible, the Ethiopian book of Enoch etc. or the here bespoken Ilias, I just find cultures that rather appear to be just recently awaken out of a long and silly animistic dream. Or rather nightmare.
In there I would more so find the root of the problems than their solutions.
During my recent years I came to learn that the search for ones identity doesn't come by sogar coating ones past but rather by accepting the many times even traumatizing effects it had on uns in a personal as much as a collective way. It was simply a formative historical force we had to went trough. Just as we did with erroneous astrology to astronomy.
It had to happen, because we didn't know otherwise.
But still this force of the past was bad enough that it even got critizised by again formative people of the long gone past. There is no way we jump before Platos demythologization in his Politeia of Homer's morale.
Later on christianity was heavily influenced by Plato in Return.
Under the influence of people like Nietzsche we too often reduce our options of buidling a new mythos by the reversion to the old presocratic, aristocratic ideal of fighting and feasting, instead of improving the pray and work ideal of the burgeois morale of the axial age.
So I would give you a point for pointing out the hypermoralizing of Hanania, but would also give a point to Hanania for him reducing ancient aristocracy's glory.
Hanania is an idiot who is not worthy of our attention. Still, good debunking of his latest attempt to crawl back up the arse of liberalism.
What men like Karl Marx and Hanania fail to realize about the past is that the relationships between the noble and the commoner were beneficial to both parties. Everyone benefits. The only reason the noble was wealthier is because his responsibility was greater still. Even in the modern world, this is common sense (hence why a manager makes more than his employee). Indeed, the French Revolution didn’t happen because the masses woke up and broke from the “propaganda” in which they were fed, but because the people (specifically the Parisians, and in fact, many of the peasants opposed the revolution) felt their king had failed his duty to them.
Superb
Yes. That's why it's good.
An epic poem is designed to be performed. Again and again. The hearer hears what s/he hears - what s/he is capable of hearing. Agamemnon is no saint, but the King of Mycenae, capable of deceiving his wife and sacrificing his daughter. Achilles is vain and narcissistic - you wouldn't like him - but if you want to argue the point, come armed. Odysseus is but the king of a hill (well, a small island). He's a cunning bastard though and you don't want to cross him. Yes they are all part of a late bronze-age archipelagic aristocracy, but that's not what Homer is arguing for. He's just set down in writing a millennial story about humans and what they purportedly did. We take from it what we may.
I think you really nailed your critic towards Hanania with the keyword god-king. The revolte against the phenomenon of Asian despotism with their god emperors was one of the main narratives during the Persian wars in early 400s BC. Even up to now. But this despotism was ironically brought by Indo-European (or Indo-Aryan) Persians and not Mesopotamiens or Egyptians.
So not every Indo-Aryan ist an Angel😉
But my POV is that I do not realy like the never ending cycle of justification and search of a mythos within the long gone past. Searching for the healing formulas inside of ancient, authoritative texts to me slowly becomes tedious and repetive.
That's the old superstition of the lost paradise of the past and the core search for mythos of the right.
But whatever old text I read, doesn't matter if it's the Atrahasis or the Gilgamesh epos, Enuma Elish, the Rig Veda, the Bible, the Ethiopian book of Enoch etc. or the here bespoken Ilias, I just find cultures that rather appear to be just recently awaken out of a long and silly animistic dream. Or rather nightmare.
In there I would more so find the root of the problems than their solutions.
During my recent years I came to learn that the search for ones identity doesn't come by sogar coating ones past but rather by accepting the many times even traumatizing effects it had on uns in a personal as much as a collective way. It was simply a formative historical force we had to went trough. Just as we did with erroneous astrology to astronomy.
It had to happen, because we didn't know otherwise.
But still this force of the past was bad enough that it even got critizised by again formative people of the long gone past. There is no way we jump before Platos demythologization in his Politeia of Homer's morale.
Later on christianity was heavily influenced by Plato in Return.
Under the influence of people like Nietzsche we too often reduce our options of buidling a new mythos by the reversion to the old presocratic, aristocratic ideal of fighting and feasting, instead of improving the pray and work ideal of the burgeois morale of the axial age.
So I would give you a point for pointing out the hypermoralizing of Hanania, but would also give a point to Hanania for him reducing ancient aristocracy's glory.