Etymophan

hellenismnow:

loluuig-may:

hellenismnow:

I know quite a few people in the Pagan community believe the Gods are archetypes and I was thinking about this and I thought that if this were the case then the Gods probably started as ancient memes that evolved over time to have attributes like the no gf meme or the pepe frog meme. I mean I know it sounds dumb but I think it’s possible. To be fair though from what I’ve read from Walter Burkert’s work that the ancient Greeks generally believed the Gods to be individuals and this is backed up by primary sources written about what certain philosophers thought the Gods were and I’ve never read a reliable source to support the archetype theory. I’m not saying there isn’t anything written supporting archetypes but I haven’t read it if there is.

A minority position in modern scholarship thinks that Epicurean theology considers the gods to be concepts, not real entities ‘out there’, although that’s almost certainly wrong. However, Epicurus’ theology has two basic components: the belief, firstly, that the existence of eternally happy, unchangeable gods is self-evident and, secondly, that meditating on these gods through traditional worship improves one’s life. Taking away the first component (which is really a question of empiricism) and you’re left with the second, which is very much compatible with the archetype theory and very hard to disprove entirely.

That the ancient Greeks generally believed the gods to be individuals is probably true, but many intellectuals distinguished different types of gods: the planets and stars, the elements, natural forces and features of the earth, and not all of these were necessarily conceived of as having consciousness. Stoicism comes close to modern physicalism in many respects, but posits one intellect that imposes order on the universe (or itself, since it is the universe, so to speak) and is less clear about consciousness. Some Stoics apparently believed that, sometimes, human consciousness could survive death for a certain amount of time, and they did have a notion of daemons; and since these daemons are thought of as ruled by the gods, it’s less than clear that their otherwise very materialist descriptions of, for example, Selene as essentially just being the physical moon really give us the whole picture.

Overall, one may say that ancient thought was overall less clear about the mechanics of consciousness and thought and therefore less thorough in distinguishing between thinking gods (as per modern polytheists’ beliefs) and non-thinking gods represented as thinking in the mind or in poetry (as per some versions of ‘archetype theory’).

There are some similar approaches to archetype theory, as when Athene is thought to be a word for the mind, but there is no perfect analogue; the same philosopher that thinks Athene is the mind might say that Hephaestus is the fire.

A quote from Saloustios may illustrate this: “Of myths some are theological, some physical, some psychic, and again some material, and some mixed from these last two. […] The psychic way is to regard the activities of the soul itself; the soul’s acts of thought, though they pass on to other objects, nevertheless remain inside their begetters.“

So one method of exegesis is application of myths to the mind’s workings. But the claim that every deity is an archetype or psychological construct/concept/structure was never made in antiquity in any extant work, at least not by anyone who supported their worship. Most Christians thought that notions of gods still had to refer to something – dead humans, demons, natural phenomena – but those who claimed that the gods had been simply invented (the claim was made by ‘pagan’ critics of religion too) arguably come close to the ‘archetype’ position. It’s obvious that their approach was still something entirely different from what we really mean when we talk about archetypes.

Yeah, I mean from an outside perspecitve I can see why someone would think they were archetypes, Sallustius also said this about the Gods 

“Let the disciple be thus. Let the teachings be of the following sort. The essences of the Gods never came into existence (for that which always is never comes into existence; and that exists for ever which possesses primary force and by nature suffers nothing): neither do they consist of bodies; for even in bodies the powers are incorporeal. Neither are they contained by space; for that is a property of bodies. Neither are they separate from the first cause nor from one another, just as thoughts are not separate from mind nor acts of knowledge from the soul. “

Which would technically put them on the same footing of what I imagine most people think of the Christian God but it also makes them seem that they could just be ideas or facets of a greater God.

Personally I believe that most of the Gods are sentient forces that act on the world and that some are forces but not entirely sentient and all are made of matter on some level but entirely separate from another as far as being individuals goes but do act in harmony as a single unit like a well functioning family.

Well, one perspective in Neoplatonism is that everything is within the One, so saying that the gods are not distinct from the ‘first cause’ amounts to nothing more than considering them to be part of the world.

(via hellenismnow)

hellenismnow:

I know quite a few people in the Pagan community believe the Gods are archetypes and I was thinking about this and I thought that if this were the case then the Gods probably started as ancient memes that evolved over time to have attributes like the no gf meme or the pepe frog meme. I mean I know it sounds dumb but I think it’s possible. To be fair though from what I’ve read from Walter Burkert’s work that the ancient Greeks generally believed the Gods to be individuals and this is backed up by primary sources written about what certain philosophers thought the Gods were and I’ve never read a reliable source to support the archetype theory. I’m not saying there isn’t anything written supporting archetypes but I haven’t read it if there is.

A minority position in modern scholarship thinks that Epicurean theology considers the gods to be concepts, not real entities ‘out there’, although that’s almost certainly wrong. However, Epicurus’ theology has two basic components: the belief, firstly, that the existence of eternally happy, unchangeable gods is self-evident and, secondly, that meditating on these gods through traditional worship improves one’s life. Taking away the first component (which is really a question of empiricism) and you’re left with the second, which is very much compatible with the archetype theory and very hard to disprove entirely.

That the ancient Greeks generally believed the gods to be individuals is probably true, but many intellectuals distinguished different types of gods: the planets and stars, the elements, natural forces and features of the earth, and not all of these were necessarily conceived of as having consciousness. Stoicism comes close to modern physicalism in many respects, but posits one intellect that imposes order on the universe (or itself, since it is the universe, so to speak) and is less clear about consciousness. Some Stoics apparently believed that, sometimes, human consciousness could survive death for a certain amount of time, and they did have a notion of daemons; and since these daemons are thought of as ruled by the gods, it’s less than clear that their otherwise very materialist descriptions of, for example, Selene as essentially just being the physical moon really give us the whole picture.

Overall, one may say that ancient thought was overall less clear about the mechanics of consciousness and thought and therefore less thorough in distinguishing between thinking gods (as per modern polytheists’ beliefs) and non-thinking gods represented as thinking in the mind or in poetry (as per some versions of ‘archetype theory’).

There are some similar approaches to archetype theory, as when Athene is thought to be a word for the mind, but there is no perfect analogue; the same philosopher that thinks Athene is the mind might say that Hephaestus is the fire.

A quote from Saloustios may illustrate this: “Of myths some are theological, some physical, some psychic, and again some material, and some mixed from these last two. […] The psychic way is to regard the activities of the soul itself; the soul’s acts of thought, though they pass on to other objects, nevertheless remain inside their begetters.“

So one method of exegesis is application of myths to the mind’s workings. But the claim that every deity is an archetype or psychological construct/concept/structure was never made in antiquity in any extant work, at least not by anyone who supported their worship. Most Christians thought that notions of gods still had to refer to something – dead humans, demons, natural phenomena – but those who claimed that the gods had been simply invented (the claim was made by ‘pagan’ critics of religion too) arguably come close to the ‘archetype’ position. It’s obvious that their approach was still something entirely different from what we really mean when we talk about archetypes.

Anonymous asked: I have checked that facts, done google searches and I still cannot find enough information about Otrera the greek Goddess of the Amazons who married Ares. I want to build my relationship with her but cannot find anything regarding her. I recently just found out who my patron deity is and it is her. I am trying to build the relationship slowly before meeting her. Any advice on this?

thepaganstudygrouppage:

The main place you’re likely to find information is Theoi. It may be because sometimes there isn’t a whole lot of information available, especially when it comes to deities that may have been considered more minor. Perhaps someone on Tumblr who incorporates Ares in their path may have more information.

Ghost

The Realencyclopädie says - I’m translating from German - “Otrere (‘the quick one’), an Amazon; was held to be one of the two queens. Spouse of Ares, mother of Penthesileia (Hyginus fabulae 112. 163. Tzetzes Posthomerica 8. 57. 127.). According to fabula 30, Hippolyte was her daughter. In Ephesus, she was seen as the founder of the Artemis temple (Hyginus fabulae 223. 225.). With Antiope, the second queen, she had built a stone temple for Ares on the island Aretias in the Black Sea (Apollonius Rhodius II 386. 1031.). In the Scholia on Homer’s Iliad, III 189 she is called the daughter of Ares and the Naiad Armenia.”

Since the only sources quoted here are, except for Apollonius Rhodius, both
-obscure, in the sense that they are rarely read and give information in the most summary manner, and
-well-established, in the sense that scholars are very aware of them and have mined them for all information a long time ago,
I doubt that there’s much more to be found anywhere, or anything to be discovered from reading the sources given; usually, there’s no reason not to check anyway, but Tzetzes’ Posthomerica and the scholia on the Iliad have never been translated, as far as I’m aware.

I also looked at the two (untranslated) sources cited but not quoted by theoi.com, Tzetzes’ Scholia on Lycophron 997 (as far as I can figure out, it just expains that Otrere’s daughter is Penthesileia) and Scholiast on Apollonius Rhodius 1.1022 (or 1033, one of which must be a mistake – for this one, I didn’t find the right scholia: there’s two sets of scholia, i.e. short notes and glosses, on the poem).

So I’m afraid what’s on theoi.com plus the quote above from the Realencyclopädie are really pretty much the sum total of what is known. If you can find someone with a reasonably firm grasp on ancient Greek, you might ask them to check out those untranslated sources, but honestly, don’t get your hopes up. Amazon lore in general has not been preserved well: stories about Penthesileia are probably the only exception to that rule.

Following Julian, I tend to subsume Roman religion under Hellenismos; and all religions that found expression in the Greek and Latin language I similarly consider Hellenist. There are difficulties: catholic Christianity is profoundly Greek; but not Hellenismos, not Pagan. But this is because catholic Christianity built its identity as non-Hellenic. Gnostic Christians and similar groups did not. Some of them can probably be called Hellenic but not Pagan; some are both.

Pagan: a term from Latin Christianity. Exclusive Hellenic Polytheism may get by without the term Pagan, but anyone who moves within Hellenismos toward a non-polytheist position or within Polytheism to a position different from “hard” reconstructionists will probably want to lay claim to it. If it weren’t for colonial baggage and the pejorative origin, it would also make a great term for a type of religion across the globe (cf Michael York’s Paganism as a World Religion).

Ethnic (and Gentile): makes sense when you look at Greek religion as one topic, I suppose. This is a Christian term for those who were not Jews or Christians: the Nations. Christianity being notoriously a unity “above” any one culture, but alienating to all other cultures. It makes little sense in describing an ancient Greek living in Rome and worshipping Janus, travelling to Egypt to consult an oracle of Osiris. Paganism was very much an international thing, too, and a basis for intercultural understanding. There were also Hellenic religions not really connected to any ethnicity, like Gnosticism, or Manichaeism, which was not Hellenic but could be on a sliding scale between Christianity and Paganism.

Barbarian: A term used (ironically) to describe Hellenic pagans as well as Christians by their enemies, respectively.

Polytheist: In origin also a derisive word; the German ‘Vielgötterei’ brings the connotations across. The idea of worshipping several gods seemed innately excessive to Abrahamic monotheists. The issue isn’t ontological or truly theological either, because some Christians and Pagans essentially agreed on the nature of the divine hierarchy, and Augustinus for one thought it indubitable that the gods of the polytheists existed, he only didn’t think they should be worshipped.

Philosophy: Themistius the Aristotelian, an orator who worked for several Christian emperors while they were slowly outlawing his religion, thought that there was more than one path to the Divine; still, he valued Greek culture above everything else, and called it and its traditional religion Philosophy. When he talked about the shift away from Hellenic religion, he called it the disappearance of Philosophy; at the same time, this was really philosophy in the old sense, too, and even in an extended sense, as he called even unlettered emperors practical, if not theoretical, philosophers. We might note that in the pre-Christian era, “religion” was pretty much the same for everyone, but one had faith and chose for his denomination a “philosophy” – since there was no term for religion in existence, it makes sense that Themistius chose Philosophy as a general term for his religion as a denomination.

Some terms for non-Hellenic religionists: Gemistos Plethon called Christians Sophists (a title of esteem among pagans in late antiquity), Themistius called the Old Testament the literature of the Assyrians, and Julian called Christians Galilaeans. Both sides called each other atheist.

thingsgotwyrd:

soloontherocks:

loolighters:

soloontherocks:

amigos-in-danger:

soloontherocks:

Things that are bullshit in Greek mythology-based fiction stories:

• TREATING ROMAN AND GREEK GODS AS THE SAME OR EQUIVALENT: fuuuuuck you there were many, many differences between the Greek and Roman Gods, your stupid little middle school class lied. Apollo and Apollon are nigh identical but basically everyone else is very different. Athena is not Minerva, Artemis is not Diana, Ares is not Mars. Haides doesn’t even HAVE a similar Roman deity.
  
• Pluto as a Roman deity: yo Pluto/Plouton wasn’t Roman Pluto was another GREEK name for the GREEK god Haides (who you call Hades) Pluto/Plouton is what you call him when you’re talking about him being the God of riches and treasure like how you sometimes call Apollo Phoebus.
  
• Apollo as the sun/driver of the sun chariot: That’s Helios, Helios and Apollo weren’t consistently syncretized into the same deity until long, long after ancient Greece. Don’t be historically inaccurate. Only assholes are historically inaccurate.
  Note: also goes for Artemis as the moon. Selene is the moon.
  
• Kronos as monstrous lava monster demon thing: the Titans were always depicted as beautiful humanoid beings, just as the Gods were.
• Ares as villain/asshole/thug/misogynist/shitty parent: being in charge of an unpopular subject matter does not make a God the scum of the earth, or abusive, or neglectful. Ares was particularly notable for being a devoted father to his offspring and is one of the few Gods without a rape story. Longer explanation of this subject here.
• Aphrodite as slut: no, really, fuck you. Fuck you and everything you love. Fuck your horse, fuck your family, fuck your ancestors, fuck everything you’ve ever touched.
  

  

• Haides as the devil/the Underworld as Hell: the Greek afterlife was for most deceased mortals a relatively peaceful eternity, without fire and torment and misery. Haides was considered a God to be respected for his power and solemnity, but that does not equate to considering him evil or terrible.
• Hera as a jealous bitch: yo Hera was one of the most widely worshiped and beloved deities in the pantheon. Stop taking the Iliad as holy writ, Homer had a noted bias atypical to the traditional mythology.
• anyone but Bellerophon or Zeus using Pegasus/more than one Pegasus in your story/anyone but Theseus killing the Minotaur/anyone but Perseus killing Medusa/anyone but Hercules killing the Boar, Lion, Hydra, etc/Perseus as son of any god but Zeus: dude read a book some time y’all need to get your stories straight Greek heroes aren’t interchangeable also fuck that Percy Jackson son of Poseidon bullshit you are being a moron. Also, Pegasus, singular. One. Solo. Pegasus is an individual “person.” There are not “pegasi”. That’s like saying Zeuses. Or Athenas. Or Poseidons.
• The entire contents of the Clash of the Titans films: just stop. Please. Stop.
• other Gods being able to defeat Zeus: yo Zeus once demolished a rebellion by the other Gods and is known to be more powerful than the other Olympians combined.
• Stories set in modern times whose plots rely on pretending modern pagans don’t exist: don’t give me this “I HAVE TO CLIMB OLYMPUS TO CONTACT THE GODS” bullshit I have three fucking shrines in my bedroom alone
• Hekate with kids or as an old woman: virgin goddess, guys, virgin goddess.
• Prometheus as hating humans: listen asshole Prometheus was tortured for millenia for how much he cared about humans don’t be a dick to Prometheus do you hear me I will cut a bitch
• Hermes the meanie trickster bully: yo Hermes was called the Friend of Man just because he’s a trickster doesn’t make him malicious
• Athena with a ton of kids: VIRGIN. GODDESS. Oh and you want to trot out that “but they’re BRAIN children!” claim? When Athena was born from Zeus’ head, it’s because he ATE her mother. If you’re going to claim Athena’s children were brain babies I want to see your book mention her eating humans. Go on. I dare you.
• Artemis the man-hater: yo she’s the goddess of hunting who do you think did the most hunting OH RIGHT MEN
• Dionysus as some old fat alcoholic dude: dude this is a sculpture of Dionysus what is wrong with you people
  

  

• Bonus for the Egyptian pantheon: calling Egyptian gods by Greek names (Thoth instead of Djehuty, Anubis instead of Anpu, etc).

((if you reblog, PLEASE REBLOG AS TEXT, NOT AS LINK. Go to the gear symbol in the upper right when you reblog and click text. That will stop your pesky auto-truncate problem. Sorry, that just drives me nuts))

Chill dude. Greek, roman and egyptian gods were centuries ago and some details may actually be fucked up a little and what we read is different from others read. But I totally agree with this :)

Greek, Roman, and Egyptian gods belong to actively surviving religions with hundreds of thousands of followers each, you fucking dumbass. Back the fuck up.

yo guys, totally agree with all of this but don’t get disrespectful calling people assholes and telling them to go fuck themselves just because they’re not as educated on a subject as you are… we’re all grown ups i think we should be able to teach someone a lesson without getting offensive and personal…

Go fuck yourself, asshole.

IDK, I think telling a hellenic reconstructionist to 

”chill dude, those gods were centuries ago“ 

like none of what was said is deeply PERSONAL to HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of followers is PRETTY FUCKING RUDE. 

• TREATING ROMAN AND GREEK GODS AS THE SAME OR EQUIVALENT: fuuuuuck you there were many, many differences between the Greek and Roman Gods, your stupid little middle school class lied. Apollo and Apollon are nigh identical but basically everyone else is very different. Athena is not Minerva, Artemis is not Diana, Ares is not Mars.

There are many differences; just as there are differences between the Artemis of Ephesus and the Artemis of Brauron. But unless we want to distinguish the deities of the same name for every different place (Apollon of Delos, Apollon of Delphi) or different cult (Dionysos of the mysteries, Dionysos of the polis cult) or different mythology (Uranos as the son of Gaia only, Uranos as the son of Gaia and Akmon), or split up a god thought of as one into their different names (Briareos and Aigaion, Brimo and Hekate, Eurynome and Eurymedousa), then we also need to allow for the possibility that a Roman and a Greek god are ultimately the same. Certainly this is a strong possibility for Apollo, Proserpina and Hercules (all names that came from Greek). Zeus is always spelt with Greek letters when the word is used in ancient Latin, because it’s a foreign word. Translated into Latin, it was Jupiter. At any rate, this was how the ancients thought of it. They thought there were Roman traditions about the gods, and Greek traditions about the same gods. There’s been a huge tendency in modern HP to differentiate, but the question of where you begin to differentiate is really impossible to answer. Did Latona’s children Apollo and Diana really just not mind when in the Secular Festival (which was only once every hundred years) the hymn to them basically described them as if they were Leto’s children, Apollon and Artemis? On the other hand, since the oracle that specified the festival’s rituals was in Greek – did Artemis and Apollon just not mind being addressed with the wrong names? You get into all sorts of absurdities if you don’t at least admit that there was some syncretism, if not outright identity.

(long read)

(via thingsgotwyrd)