New Post
Search
HelpRe: Hera (edited) - ETA
in reply to a message by mirfak
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.
Anyway, I just think if people are taking her whole instead of imposing their own culture's "universal" ideals, her desires wouldn't conflict with her being a namesake.
Choosing to honor what Hera desires wouldn't make a mortal spiteful, even if Hera is shown to be spiteful in pursuit of desires (because she's idealized, implicitly).
...ETA: I think, as a modern person, not acknowledging that disempowers (or obscures the power of) the past in our lives, while claiming to honor it; yet acknowledging it doesn't recreate past cultural norms, because likely we have different ideas/concepts about power in relationships. It's sorta like: when I name a kid after parent, I'm not recreating my parent, even if I am intending to honor their values or convey some fundamental ideal/power of "family"; their life is in the past, but if I don't accept who they were, flaws and all, am I actually "honoring"? So, I think naming someone Zeus (with intentional connection to a god, an ideal/power with nature based desires who exists in relationship) is about equally like acknowledging a flawed granddad Fred's influence in one's life by naming a kid Fred, as it is like naming someone Prosper or Sky...if we act like past Fred / Zeus should have been desireless or perfect because we're imposing some idea of "good" or "worthy", that's when they're not a meaningful namesake imv, even if they can be said to symbolize a fundamental value or virtue - not because I don't think virtue or nature names can be meaningful, but because I think it's artificially/willfully impersonal or overly sanitized in a way that potentially restricts growth.
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.
Anyway, I just think if people are taking her whole instead of imposing their own culture's "universal" ideals, her desires wouldn't conflict with her being a namesake.
Choosing to honor what Hera desires wouldn't make a mortal spiteful, even if Hera is shown to be spiteful in pursuit of desires (because she's idealized, implicitly).
...ETA: I think, as a modern person, not acknowledging that disempowers (or obscures the power of) the past in our lives, while claiming to honor it; yet acknowledging it doesn't recreate past cultural norms, because likely we have different ideas/concepts about power in relationships. It's sorta like: when I name a kid after parent, I'm not recreating my parent, even if I am intending to honor their values or convey some fundamental ideal/power of "family"; their life is in the past, but if I don't accept who they were, flaws and all, am I actually "honoring"? So, I think naming someone Zeus (with intentional connection to a god, an ideal/power with nature based desires who exists in relationship) is about equally like acknowledging a flawed granddad Fred's influence in one's life by naming a kid Fred, as it is like naming someone Prosper or Sky...if we act like past Fred / Zeus should have been desireless or perfect because we're imposing some idea of "good" or "worthy", that's when they're not a meaningful namesake imv, even if they can be said to symbolize a fundamental value or virtue - not because I don't think virtue or nature names can be meaningful, but because I think it's artificially/willfully impersonal or overly sanitized in a way that potentially restricts growth.
This message was edited 4/30/2021, 2:56 PM
Archived Thread - replies disabled
1