New Post
Search
HelpRe: Hera (edited)
in reply to a message by Manipura
I've been thinking, mainly, that people probably aren't thinking of Hera, if they're thinking of her outside the context of ancient religion.
And that's fine. I like the name independent of symbolism myself. But if we are talking about the Greek goddess, we're talking about ancient religion, right?
Basically yeah ... I thought we're talking about how the name Hera has a meaning, for us, that is related to the ancient religion. And how we suppose our meanings are related to that.
"Despite us not really being able to "get" how anyone believed in gods like this"
I get it. People can get it. (I think that's mostly what we're disagreeing about? My claim that I understand why people wanted to venerate Hera.)
Yeah people can get it ... but, do they? Do you?
The way I get it, is probably a little like the way you get it. It seems that way from what you say, I guess.
I think what Pelops says is pretty important. I think the myths aren't allegories or metaphors, and they certainly weren't supposed to be literal... myths are analogical, they not prescribing behavior or depicting ideals - on the contrary. One reason I think they're considered religious is just because what they express isn't objective/literal, and their complete meaning only arises in the mind of a person who reads them. It's not IN the text. Another reason is, they represent values as divine (suggesting they are universal, natural, or absolute values).
I don't think the AG myths were like religious propaganda that conditioned people to accept or conform with cultural norms. I think the cultural norms are in the myths because part of the point of the myths is not only to show how norms (and all their problems and tragedies) come to be, but also to give insight into why they are not so easily "fixed" or made better. They're not ideological / propagandistic, they don't preach or indoctrinate or moralize. They described things in a way that could *lead* to insight and judgment.
Anyway I don't really think we disagree ... I think we can't just clip Hera out of her context and reattach her to some conceit of our own about marriage - or, as you say, "redeem" her by spinning, cherrypicking, or rewriting her stories. We recognize there's some common thread between AG marriage and ours, the myths are still intelligible, and they're thought to be heritage we can claim without "appropriating," and that's why Hera can still represent marriage at all. So yeah, we can be discomfited by the events in the stories but I think the AGs probably were supposed to be, too. I think it's shallow to presume that the character-Hera in myths, who is sometimes weak and petty, is supposed to represent an ideal worthy of the queen of the gods. I don't think we can presume the AGs were uncritical about rape or adultery just because the myths have gods doing those things, either.
I think if we take myths to represent acceptance or idealization of the way the gods behave in them, then it doesn't make sense to also embrace the ideals the gods represent and consider they might be good namesakes. Like, Zeus would be insufferable if he were real ... and I think that was obvious to the AGs and it's on purpose, because it communicates meaning at a different level. I don't think it's necessary to "redeem" Hera just because the myths seem, from a shallow angle, to make her look weak, or make marriage fidelity seem like a petty selfish concern, or to be propaganda for patriarchy. I think we can take her whole, to represent the same ideal she always did, and just acknowledge that the way ancient myths are written is not the same way our culture teaches about ideals. I'm pretty sure you don't disagree with that ... at least not in general?
- mirfak
And that's fine. I like the name independent of symbolism myself. But if we are talking about the Greek goddess, we're talking about ancient religion, right?
Basically yeah ... I thought we're talking about how the name Hera has a meaning, for us, that is related to the ancient religion. And how we suppose our meanings are related to that.
"Despite us not really being able to "get" how anyone believed in gods like this"
I get it. People can get it. (I think that's mostly what we're disagreeing about? My claim that I understand why people wanted to venerate Hera.)
Yeah people can get it ... but, do they? Do you?
The way I get it, is probably a little like the way you get it. It seems that way from what you say, I guess.
I think what Pelops says is pretty important. I think the myths aren't allegories or metaphors, and they certainly weren't supposed to be literal... myths are analogical, they not prescribing behavior or depicting ideals - on the contrary. One reason I think they're considered religious is just because what they express isn't objective/literal, and their complete meaning only arises in the mind of a person who reads them. It's not IN the text. Another reason is, they represent values as divine (suggesting they are universal, natural, or absolute values).
I don't think the AG myths were like religious propaganda that conditioned people to accept or conform with cultural norms. I think the cultural norms are in the myths because part of the point of the myths is not only to show how norms (and all their problems and tragedies) come to be, but also to give insight into why they are not so easily "fixed" or made better. They're not ideological / propagandistic, they don't preach or indoctrinate or moralize. They described things in a way that could *lead* to insight and judgment.
Anyway I don't really think we disagree ... I think we can't just clip Hera out of her context and reattach her to some conceit of our own about marriage - or, as you say, "redeem" her by spinning, cherrypicking, or rewriting her stories. We recognize there's some common thread between AG marriage and ours, the myths are still intelligible, and they're thought to be heritage we can claim without "appropriating," and that's why Hera can still represent marriage at all. So yeah, we can be discomfited by the events in the stories but I think the AGs probably were supposed to be, too. I think it's shallow to presume that the character-Hera in myths, who is sometimes weak and petty, is supposed to represent an ideal worthy of the queen of the gods. I don't think we can presume the AGs were uncritical about rape or adultery just because the myths have gods doing those things, either.
I think if we take myths to represent acceptance or idealization of the way the gods behave in them, then it doesn't make sense to also embrace the ideals the gods represent and consider they might be good namesakes. Like, Zeus would be insufferable if he were real ... and I think that was obvious to the AGs and it's on purpose, because it communicates meaning at a different level. I don't think it's necessary to "redeem" Hera just because the myths seem, from a shallow angle, to make her look weak, or make marriage fidelity seem like a petty selfish concern, or to be propaganda for patriarchy. I think we can take her whole, to represent the same ideal she always did, and just acknowledge that the way ancient myths are written is not the same way our culture teaches about ideals. I'm pretty sure you don't disagree with that ... at least not in general?
- mirfak
This message was edited 4/29/2021, 9:11 PM
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1
Replies
I think you must agree that it's shallow to presume that the character-Hera in myths, who is sometimes weak and petty, is supposed to represent an ideal worthy of the queen of the gods.
Not quite...Hera is queen of the gods (of course she is worthy - this wouldn't need to be spelled out for religious Greeks; they'd already know). Gods and goddess conflict in myths because they individually are not omnipotent in all arenas. Their power/nature is revealed in contrast. Zeus's weakness can be Hera's strength, and vice versa.
This is why I don't like when they're taken out of context...or reduced to universals/archetypes, even if they are those, too...the ways those archetypes relate as depicted for Greeks isn't necessarily universal; if we obscure their weakness, we obscure their nature. And if we claim they're not ideals, we obscure their nature. IMV.
I also think it's shallow to presume the AGs were uncritical about rape or adultery just because the myths have gods doing those things.
Zeus can't truly be refused, is what I said. It's not necessarily negative in context, from a religious perspective (he's like weather, fate, is ultimate protector, father, etc), which is relationship based. These things give people insight about nature and ability to self-reflect, but also involve belief in power (which is going to influence thinking and cultural norms). I wouldn't say AGs were uncritical of rape, but they had vastly different understanding of it. Pretending as if they didn't would be shallow imv.
The myths IMO are supposed to let us wonder how much meanness and humiliation and destruction would be avoided IF ONLY Zeus wasn't the way he is ... if only WE weren't like Zeus
I don't really disagree, but I think it's more aimed at revealing nature/character/desire in general.
Mortals aren't meant to think they can act like gods, yeah, but they are meant to honor gods and sacrifice for them? Myths revolve around divine desires partly for that purpose...IMV their desires were respected if their natures were respected. But a mortal can't be expected to get what they want if even a god can't. And the gods' desires are limited, too, because they're not human. Zeus might not desire to be faithful/restrained (it's not his nature - what does it matter if a storm isn't restrained?), but maybe a mortal man does, and maybe that's Hera at work or a result of sacrifice dedicated to Hera.
Not quite...Hera is queen of the gods (of course she is worthy - this wouldn't need to be spelled out for religious Greeks; they'd already know). Gods and goddess conflict in myths because they individually are not omnipotent in all arenas. Their power/nature is revealed in contrast. Zeus's weakness can be Hera's strength, and vice versa.
This is why I don't like when they're taken out of context...or reduced to universals/archetypes, even if they are those, too...the ways those archetypes relate as depicted for Greeks isn't necessarily universal; if we obscure their weakness, we obscure their nature. And if we claim they're not ideals, we obscure their nature. IMV.
I also think it's shallow to presume the AGs were uncritical about rape or adultery just because the myths have gods doing those things.
Zeus can't truly be refused, is what I said. It's not necessarily negative in context, from a religious perspective (he's like weather, fate, is ultimate protector, father, etc), which is relationship based. These things give people insight about nature and ability to self-reflect, but also involve belief in power (which is going to influence thinking and cultural norms). I wouldn't say AGs were uncritical of rape, but they had vastly different understanding of it. Pretending as if they didn't would be shallow imv.
The myths IMO are supposed to let us wonder how much meanness and humiliation and destruction would be avoided IF ONLY Zeus wasn't the way he is ... if only WE weren't like Zeus
I don't really disagree, but I think it's more aimed at revealing nature/character/desire in general.
Mortals aren't meant to think they can act like gods, yeah, but they are meant to honor gods and sacrifice for them? Myths revolve around divine desires partly for that purpose...IMV their desires were respected if their natures were respected. But a mortal can't be expected to get what they want if even a god can't. And the gods' desires are limited, too, because they're not human. Zeus might not desire to be faithful/restrained (it's not his nature - what does it matter if a storm isn't restrained?), but maybe a mortal man does, and maybe that's Hera at work or a result of sacrifice dedicated to Hera.
This message was edited 4/30/2021, 2:56 PM
1