Arion was a poet and a musician that won a competition, and got a prize of lotsa gold. He decided to sail home, but when he was well on his way his crew told him that they would kill him to get his treasure.
Arion pleaded for one last request; that he nay be permitted to sing one last time with his lyre. He did so then jumped into the sea, where he was saved by dolphins who had gathered around to listen to him. He came home, and his brother helped him catch the knaves, whom they cursed.
I think this myth is supposed to mean that treasure bring more trouble than pleasure, and that the only things that matter are family and friendship; the golden F's. This is rather cheesy, but I guess it's true, and at the time the myth was written it was probably a novel idea.
jueves, 27 de septiembre de 2007
Penelope
Penelope was Ulysse's wife. She was the daughter of a Spartan prince, who apparently raised a statue in honor of Modesty where he last saw her (which is kinda strange, since Spartans are supposed to be tough, un-loving people). A year after their marriage, Ulysse was called up to the Trojan War, and then went through all the adventures in, "The Odyssey."
While her husband was going through his epic voyage, however, all of Penelope's friends were pressuring her to get married again since Ulysse was believed to be dead. Penelope, however, wanted to buy her husband sme time and so she promised everyone that she would get married again once she finished a robe she was working on, which was never managed since she would sow all day and unstitch her points all night. This is where the expression "Penelope's web" is derived from, meaning a work that is always in progress and never done.
While her husband was going through his epic voyage, however, all of Penelope's friends were pressuring her to get married again since Ulysse was believed to be dead. Penelope, however, wanted to buy her husband sme time and so she promised everyone that she would get married again once she finished a robe she was working on, which was never managed since she would sow all day and unstitch her points all night. This is where the expression "Penelope's web" is derived from, meaning a work that is always in progress and never done.
Admetus & Alcestis
Apollo killed a bunch of cyclops, and as a punishment Pluto condemned him to work for Admetus, a mortal. He marries Alcetis, but shortly after he begins to get really sick.
Apollo convinces the Fates to let Admetus live, and they agree on the condition that someone will die for him. Admetus is pleased, for he is sure that someone will be willing to sacrifice himself for him. But his most loyal servants, his bravest soldiers, his best friends, and his parents are unwilling to let go of their lives for him.
Finally, Alcestis offered her life. Admetus was heartbroken, but he couldn't change his agreement with the fates and as he got better, his wife got sicker. Finally, Hercules came along and the story is that he slept outside Alcestis' room the night she was due to die and chased away Death.
I think it's very true that no one would have sacrificed himself for the king, no matter how much they liked him. I read this book once, and it talked about, "man's natural abhorrence of Death," and how no matter how much you loved someone, and how willing you would be to herd a million turtles bare-footed over the hot coals of earth for them, you could never die for them if you had time to think about it (unlike those battle scenes where someone takes a bullet for their best friend). So I agreed with this myth completely.
Apollo convinces the Fates to let Admetus live, and they agree on the condition that someone will die for him. Admetus is pleased, for he is sure that someone will be willing to sacrifice himself for him. But his most loyal servants, his bravest soldiers, his best friends, and his parents are unwilling to let go of their lives for him.
Finally, Alcestis offered her life. Admetus was heartbroken, but he couldn't change his agreement with the fates and as he got better, his wife got sicker. Finally, Hercules came along and the story is that he slept outside Alcestis' room the night she was due to die and chased away Death.
I think it's very true that no one would have sacrificed himself for the king, no matter how much they liked him. I read this book once, and it talked about, "man's natural abhorrence of Death," and how no matter how much you loved someone, and how willing you would be to herd a million turtles bare-footed over the hot coals of earth for them, you could never die for them if you had time to think about it (unlike those battle scenes where someone takes a bullet for their best friend). So I agreed with this myth completely.
miércoles, 26 de septiembre de 2007
Fallacies of Relevance
I consider this a rather pathetic piece of writing, but it makes my job easy so I ain't complaining.
September 26, 2007 -- This should be obvious: If America wants Iraqis to respect the rule of law, then no one in Iraq - not even Americans - can be above it.
And that goes double for heavily armed Americans working for private security firms - like the ones apparently responsible for the deaths last week of at least 11 Iraqis in a crowded Baghdad square.
This is a personal attack, or at least an attack on Blackwater, which is being accused of not being careful with its employees.
The firm in question is Blackwater USA, which has about 1,000 employees responsible for protecting State Department diplomats in Iraq - and operates with almost no accountability.
A lot of goons are running around in Iraq on behalf of U.S. diplomats. Failure to rein them in will have dire consequences.
Again, abusive personal attack. "A lot of goons running around," is an insult to all the guards working there. It can also be considered appeal to force...Never mind, it's just warning us of the consequences of not doing as he says.
Iraq's Interior Ministry says that Blackwater guards opened fire on Iraqi civilians after a car failed to stop quickly enough at a roadblock. The massacre produced a furor among Iraqis grown sick of Blackwater's heavy-handed tactics.
This is an appeal to an improper authority. It quotes Iraq's Interior Minister, who is likely to be slightly biased against the Americans, and does not explain the U.S.' version of what happened.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki even "banned" the firm from the country (though he was powerless to enforce his ruling).
Exactly what happened still isn't clear. Blackwater says its forces were responding to an insurgent attack, and gunfire from a nearby Iraqi Army installation may have given them that impression.
Now they explain what the Americans thought had happened, so it evens out.
But the massacre remains a travesty - one that the United States needs to address quickly if it wants to preserve the still-fragile progress in law and order that is emerging as a result of the troop surge.
This is the patriotic approach. This one is more for Iraqis, though, telling them to take care of the problem or their country will get hurt.
The core problem is that private contractors like Blackwater enjoy complete immunity from Iraq's laws, thanks to rules enacted under the post-invasion Coalition Provisional Authority. And they don't seem to have much to fear from America's judicial system, either.
This is an abusive personal attack, telling us that the U.S. officers working in Iraq and the U.S. judicial system is no good and is causing trouble in Irag.
Without question, some private contractors perform invaluable work in Iraq, especially as they free real troops to go after insurgents and pacify neighborhoods.
This is also personal, although it's praise more than attack.
Even a spokesman for Iraq's security forces admitted that removing Blackwater immediately, as Maliki demanded, would create a "security imbalance."
This is the snob approach, saying that an important Iraqi person is saying this, therefore it must be true.
But if the firm - and others like it - are going to remain in that country, our government needs to act now to get them under control.
This could be using the bandwagon approach, except it's saying, "Everyone's doing it...But everyone's wrong."
The dangers of Blackwater's continued lack of accountability should be clear:
* It leads the swollen-headed among the contractors to think they can do whatever they please - opening the door to possible atrocities.
* It feeds the perception of Americans as arrogant occupiers.
* It fosters an atmosphere of recklessness - at the exact moment when U.S. troops seem to be winning Iraqi trust.
Indeed, it's no stretch to say that Blackwater's callousness directly undermines America's mission, where it is most vulnerable.
This is both an abusive personal attack, saying that Blackwater is callous, and a patriotic approach, saying that they're undermining America's plan and we should stop them from doing that.
Thanks to deep historical divisions and Washington's obviously insufficient post-invasion military and political plans, Iraq has devolved into countless factions. The best-intentioned of these are loosely connected by a weak central government - but even they often retain their own private militias.
Once again, abusive personal attack, saying that Washington's military is "insufficient," and that Iraq has a weak government.
Less than a year after Gen. David Petraeus took over U.S. military leadership in Iraq, U.S. troops have only started to turn those militias into a somewhat-unified, cooperative Iraqi army, as the surge brings security to more and more areas.
But how can imams and tribal and party leaders - and their gunmen - trust Petraeus, when, for all they can see, the U.S. government is employing irresponsible "militias" of its own, in the form of private contractors?
Put simply, Washington needs to act soon to gain control of Blackwater and other loose-cannon contractors.
If it fails, it risks all the gains it's made in Iraq so far.
The conclusion is alright, there isn't much to complain about.
September 26, 2007 -- This should be obvious: If America wants Iraqis to respect the rule of law, then no one in Iraq - not even Americans - can be above it.
And that goes double for heavily armed Americans working for private security firms - like the ones apparently responsible for the deaths last week of at least 11 Iraqis in a crowded Baghdad square.
This is a personal attack, or at least an attack on Blackwater, which is being accused of not being careful with its employees.
The firm in question is Blackwater USA, which has about 1,000 employees responsible for protecting State Department diplomats in Iraq - and operates with almost no accountability.
A lot of goons are running around in Iraq on behalf of U.S. diplomats. Failure to rein them in will have dire consequences.
Again, abusive personal attack. "A lot of goons running around," is an insult to all the guards working there. It can also be considered appeal to force...Never mind, it's just warning us of the consequences of not doing as he says.
Iraq's Interior Ministry says that Blackwater guards opened fire on Iraqi civilians after a car failed to stop quickly enough at a roadblock. The massacre produced a furor among Iraqis grown sick of Blackwater's heavy-handed tactics.
This is an appeal to an improper authority. It quotes Iraq's Interior Minister, who is likely to be slightly biased against the Americans, and does not explain the U.S.' version of what happened.
Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki even "banned" the firm from the country (though he was powerless to enforce his ruling).
Exactly what happened still isn't clear. Blackwater says its forces were responding to an insurgent attack, and gunfire from a nearby Iraqi Army installation may have given them that impression.
Now they explain what the Americans thought had happened, so it evens out.
But the massacre remains a travesty - one that the United States needs to address quickly if it wants to preserve the still-fragile progress in law and order that is emerging as a result of the troop surge.
This is the patriotic approach. This one is more for Iraqis, though, telling them to take care of the problem or their country will get hurt.
The core problem is that private contractors like Blackwater enjoy complete immunity from Iraq's laws, thanks to rules enacted under the post-invasion Coalition Provisional Authority. And they don't seem to have much to fear from America's judicial system, either.
This is an abusive personal attack, telling us that the U.S. officers working in Iraq and the U.S. judicial system is no good and is causing trouble in Irag.
Without question, some private contractors perform invaluable work in Iraq, especially as they free real troops to go after insurgents and pacify neighborhoods.
This is also personal, although it's praise more than attack.
Even a spokesman for Iraq's security forces admitted that removing Blackwater immediately, as Maliki demanded, would create a "security imbalance."
This is the snob approach, saying that an important Iraqi person is saying this, therefore it must be true.
But if the firm - and others like it - are going to remain in that country, our government needs to act now to get them under control.
This could be using the bandwagon approach, except it's saying, "Everyone's doing it...But everyone's wrong."
The dangers of Blackwater's continued lack of accountability should be clear:
* It leads the swollen-headed among the contractors to think they can do whatever they please - opening the door to possible atrocities.
* It feeds the perception of Americans as arrogant occupiers.
* It fosters an atmosphere of recklessness - at the exact moment when U.S. troops seem to be winning Iraqi trust.
Indeed, it's no stretch to say that Blackwater's callousness directly undermines America's mission, where it is most vulnerable.
This is both an abusive personal attack, saying that Blackwater is callous, and a patriotic approach, saying that they're undermining America's plan and we should stop them from doing that.
Thanks to deep historical divisions and Washington's obviously insufficient post-invasion military and political plans, Iraq has devolved into countless factions. The best-intentioned of these are loosely connected by a weak central government - but even they often retain their own private militias.
Once again, abusive personal attack, saying that Washington's military is "insufficient," and that Iraq has a weak government.
Less than a year after Gen. David Petraeus took over U.S. military leadership in Iraq, U.S. troops have only started to turn those militias into a somewhat-unified, cooperative Iraqi army, as the surge brings security to more and more areas.
But how can imams and tribal and party leaders - and their gunmen - trust Petraeus, when, for all they can see, the U.S. government is employing irresponsible "militias" of its own, in the form of private contractors?
Put simply, Washington needs to act soon to gain control of Blackwater and other loose-cannon contractors.
If it fails, it risks all the gains it's made in Iraq so far.
The conclusion is alright, there isn't much to complain about.
martes, 25 de septiembre de 2007
Examples of Greek Words
"The work's laconic eloquence speaks of an era and a nation." (Art Listings) nytimes.com.
This says that though the painting is not very full of scribvles and stuff, it still says a lot with very little, it's very concise.
"More arresting, though, is the figure in the front of the curtain, the teenage artist himself posing, with the casual narcissism of a seasoned model, in a white T-shirt and briefs." (When the I Is the Subject, And It's Always Changing) nytimes.com. This uses narcissism to explain that the model knew how good he looked and liked himself for it.
These are two examples of how the Greek words were used in context in a New York Times article.
This says that though the painting is not very full of scribvles and stuff, it still says a lot with very little, it's very concise.
"More arresting, though, is the figure in the front of the curtain, the teenage artist himself posing, with the casual narcissism of a seasoned model, in a white T-shirt and briefs." (When the I Is the Subject, And It's Always Changing) nytimes.com. This uses narcissism to explain that the model knew how good he looked and liked himself for it.
These are two examples of how the Greek words were used in context in a New York Times article.
lunes, 24 de septiembre de 2007
The Golden Fleece
Once upon a time a man grew bored of his wife. He put her away and got himself another one. The mother was worried about the children, and Mercury offered her a golden ram that would take them to safety. This was done, and the ram was sacrificed.
Years later, an uncle didn't want his nephew, Jason, to become king. He told him that if he managed to bring back to fleece of the golden ram. The nephew agreed, and attempted the first maritime expedition. Fifty young men joined in, including Hercules, Theseus, Orpheus, and Nestor.
So Jason was confronted with a bunch of impossible tasks, but with the help of the sorceress Medea, he manages all of the them, marries Medea, goes home, and lives happily ever after.
This was, supposedly, really the first maritime expedition in Greece. Jason was probably a pirate, which is confirmed by the fact he brought back gold at the end. Maybe it's true, even though that would put all those heroes in a much less noble light.
Years later, an uncle didn't want his nephew, Jason, to become king. He told him that if he managed to bring back to fleece of the golden ram. The nephew agreed, and attempted the first maritime expedition. Fifty young men joined in, including Hercules, Theseus, Orpheus, and Nestor.
So Jason was confronted with a bunch of impossible tasks, but with the help of the sorceress Medea, he manages all of the them, marries Medea, goes home, and lives happily ever after.
This was, supposedly, really the first maritime expedition in Greece. Jason was probably a pirate, which is confirmed by the fact he brought back gold at the end. Maybe it's true, even though that would put all those heroes in a much less noble light.
Niobe
This is the saddest myth I have read so far, and from now I will loathe Apollo and Diane with a burning passion.
Niobe claimed that she was worthier of respect than Athena, because she had fourteen children and Athena had only two. Athena heard this, and asked said two children to avenge her. They did so by killing all of her children.
Niobe was turned to stone, and a river of tears continuously flows from her eyes do to her never-ending grief.
I hate this myth. I'll admit that Niobe had it coming, talking like that, but did they really have to kill all her children? It wasn't their fault there mother was a loud-mouthed idiot. Apollo and Diane must have thought that this was more of a punishment than killing her, and I've realized by now that when it come to revenge the gods will stop at nothing.
Like the myth of Arachne, the moral here is: Don't brag, and especially don't say you're better than a god. Or anyone "better" than you, because they have the power to punish you severely.
Niobe claimed that she was worthier of respect than Athena, because she had fourteen children and Athena had only two. Athena heard this, and asked said two children to avenge her. They did so by killing all of her children.
Niobe was turned to stone, and a river of tears continuously flows from her eyes do to her never-ending grief.
I hate this myth. I'll admit that Niobe had it coming, talking like that, but did they really have to kill all her children? It wasn't their fault there mother was a loud-mouthed idiot. Apollo and Diane must have thought that this was more of a punishment than killing her, and I've realized by now that when it come to revenge the gods will stop at nothing.
Like the myth of Arachne, the moral here is: Don't brag, and especially don't say you're better than a god. Or anyone "better" than you, because they have the power to punish you severely.
Minerva
Minerva was the goddess of defensive war, agriculture, navigation, spinning, weaving, and needlework. One day she jumped out of Zeus' head, adult and dressed in armor.
She became the goddess of Athens after having won the city in a contest against Neptune. The gods had had a competition to see who got to be god of Athens, and the goal was to make the most useful creation to mankind.
Neptune made the horse, which can be used for hunting, war, transportation, and work. Minerva made the olive, which can be used for oil, food, cocktail parties, and decoration (I'm guessing what they were used for, by the way).
The gods said that the olive was most useful, and Minerva won Athens. Their decision kinda puzzled me, honestly. Why would think that the olive was most useful? Sure it can be used for food, but it's not that nourishing., and it can be used for oil, but that's not that important, whereas a horse is much more useful as transportation, hunting, war, and a sport; it is much more unique and irreplaceable than an olive. Maybe they figured that...olives were really good?
This also tells the tale of Arachne, who challenged Athens to a spinning contest. Though they hinted that Archne's painting was better than Minerva's (its virtues were more praised), she painted disparaging scenes about the gods, then felt really ashamed and guilty and hung herself. Minerva pitied her and turned her into a spider.
Maybe this was a sort of punishment towards Arachne. Minerva felt sorry for her, but not enough to turn her into a cute and cuddly little puppy, so she turned her into a horrible little creature that people enjoy killing.
I hate spiders.
She became the goddess of Athens after having won the city in a contest against Neptune. The gods had had a competition to see who got to be god of Athens, and the goal was to make the most useful creation to mankind.
Neptune made the horse, which can be used for hunting, war, transportation, and work. Minerva made the olive, which can be used for oil, food, cocktail parties, and decoration (I'm guessing what they were used for, by the way).
The gods said that the olive was most useful, and Minerva won Athens. Their decision kinda puzzled me, honestly. Why would think that the olive was most useful? Sure it can be used for food, but it's not that nourishing., and it can be used for oil, but that's not that important, whereas a horse is much more useful as transportation, hunting, war, and a sport; it is much more unique and irreplaceable than an olive. Maybe they figured that...olives were really good?
This also tells the tale of Arachne, who challenged Athens to a spinning contest. Though they hinted that Archne's painting was better than Minerva's (its virtues were more praised), she painted disparaging scenes about the gods, then felt really ashamed and guilty and hung herself. Minerva pitied her and turned her into a spider.
Maybe this was a sort of punishment towards Arachne. Minerva felt sorry for her, but not enough to turn her into a cute and cuddly little puppy, so she turned her into a horrible little creature that people enjoy killing.
I hate spiders.
domingo, 23 de septiembre de 2007
Amphion
Amphion was the son of Jupiter and Antiope, Queen of Thebes. He and his twin brother Zethus grew up as shepherds on Mount Cithaeron. Amphion played the lyre while Zethus hunted.
One day the twins learned of their heritage, and that their mother was being treated cruelly by Lycus, the usurping king of Thebes, and his wife Dirce.
The twins were angry, and with a herd of fellow shephers stormed Thebes, and made bulls drag Dirce by her hair until she died. Amphion became king. It is he said he fortified the walls of the city by playing on his lyre, and all the stones moved of their own accord.
This is a mixture of a story and a myth, and it does not really have a moral except: Don't mistreat the mother of the son of a god, or you'll come to a very painful. Or don't mistreat the mother of anyone, basically, because their son will avenge her.
One day the twins learned of their heritage, and that their mother was being treated cruelly by Lycus, the usurping king of Thebes, and his wife Dirce.
The twins were angry, and with a herd of fellow shephers stormed Thebes, and made bulls drag Dirce by her hair until she died. Amphion became king. It is he said he fortified the walls of the city by playing on his lyre, and all the stones moved of their own accord.
This is a mixture of a story and a myth, and it does not really have a moral except: Don't mistreat the mother of the son of a god, or you'll come to a very painful. Or don't mistreat the mother of anyone, basically, because their son will avenge her.
Melampus
Melampus' ears were licked by snakes, and after he could hear what animals said. One day he was taken prisoner, and he heard the woodworms in the timber of his cell saying that the house would soon collapse. He warned his captors of this, and they escaped. After that they always held him in high honor.
I suppose that the moral of this story is that if you help someone they'll help you. That' what they always say in movies when they're blackmailing someone, "Help me and I'll help you." Except here he did it of his own free will, and because of this they like him better because he helped them despite being their prisoner.
I suppose that the moral of this story is that if you help someone they'll help you. That' what they always say in movies when they're blackmailing someone, "Help me and I'll help you." Except here he did it of his own free will, and because of this they like him better because he helped them despite being their prisoner.
Acis & Galatea
Acis was a sea-nymph, and one day she fell in love with a youth named Galatea. A cyclop, however, was also in love with her, and when he saw them together he killed Galatea. Acis was heartbroken and turned his blood into a river.
I didn't know that cyclops were capable of love. I always thought that they were great brutes that killed everyone. Maybe they're one of the monsters that were punished for something and made really ugly, and because of that they became really evil.
I wonder if everyone that the gods punish become really evil, even if they were really kind to start with...Although I supposed that if they were kind to start with they wouldn't be punished in the first place.
I have a random question. Did the Greeks have policemen?
I didn't know that cyclops were capable of love. I always thought that they were great brutes that killed everyone. Maybe they're one of the monsters that were punished for something and made really ugly, and because of that they became really evil.
I wonder if everyone that the gods punish become really evil, even if they were really kind to start with...Although I supposed that if they were kind to start with they wouldn't be punished in the first place.
I have a random question. Did the Greeks have policemen?
Orion
Orion was the giant son of Neptune, and one day he fell in love with a beautiful maiden and tried to take her by force. As a punishment, her father deprived him of sight.
He wandered alone for a long time, and eventually met Diana, and they decided to marry. Her brother, however, disapproved of this and one day when he saw Orion swimming across the sea he got an idea. Orion was far away, and just looked like a black spot on the ocean, and so Diana's brother bet her that she could not hit that black thing on the ocean. Diana discharged a shaft with perfect aiming, and later on Orion's body rolled onto the beach.
Diana was heartbroken and made him a constellation.
I think that the moral of this story is that you should look at what you shoot before you shoot it, and not lose your head because you were "bet" that you could not do it, or else something disastrous can happen. Also that you think about your sister's feelings before you shoot her beau, even if her beau is a rapist.
He wandered alone for a long time, and eventually met Diana, and they decided to marry. Her brother, however, disapproved of this and one day when he saw Orion swimming across the sea he got an idea. Orion was far away, and just looked like a black spot on the ocean, and so Diana's brother bet her that she could not hit that black thing on the ocean. Diana discharged a shaft with perfect aiming, and later on Orion's body rolled onto the beach.
Diana was heartbroken and made him a constellation.
I think that the moral of this story is that you should look at what you shoot before you shoot it, and not lose your head because you were "bet" that you could not do it, or else something disastrous can happen. Also that you think about your sister's feelings before you shoot her beau, even if her beau is a rapist.
Aristaeus the Bee-Keeper
Aristaeus was a bee-keeper. One day all of his bees died, and he asked his mother to help. She told him that if she were to force Proteus to help him, he would find out what happened.
So Aristaeus found Proteus, who told him that a nymph, while trying to escape from him, was bitten by a snake and died as a result. Her friends, angry, killed all his bees. The only way for him to get them back would be to kill four bulls, sacrifice them to the nymphs, and nine days later come back.
Aristaeus did so, and when he came back nine days later, he found that inside one of the carcasses bees had made a bee-hive.
This is supposed to explain why bees sometimes live in the wild.
So Aristaeus found Proteus, who told him that a nymph, while trying to escape from him, was bitten by a snake and died as a result. Her friends, angry, killed all his bees. The only way for him to get them back would be to kill four bulls, sacrifice them to the nymphs, and nine days later come back.
Aristaeus did so, and when he came back nine days later, he found that inside one of the carcasses bees had made a bee-hive.
This is supposed to explain why bees sometimes live in the wild.
Erisichthon
Erisichthon was a Greek who profaned the gods by cutting down a tree sacred to Ceres, a forest Nymph. As a punishment, Ceres condemned him to always be hungry, no matter how much he ate. And so Erisichthon was hungry, and lost all his money buying food. When he had no more money, he sold his daughter.
The daughter, however, did not like being sold, and asked Neptune to save her. And so whenever she was sold, he would turn her into an animal so that she could run away, back to her father, who would sell her again for more money.
However, at the end his hunger got that best of him and he ate himself.
This gives me a disturbing mental image of a skull trying to eat its nose.
When I read this myth I found there was a cool connection with cutting forests in it. Even though I realize that the Greeks probably knew nothing about the the dangers of cutting too many forests when this myth was written, and this was not meant in any way to be taken as I have taken it, it made me think that maybe this was a warning to us humans. There's this one African quote that goes along the lines of, "Only when the last fish has been fished, when the last cow has been slayed, when the last river has been drunk, will humans realize they cannot eat money." We're cutting down all the forests so that we can get money, and maybe once we have done that too much of that, we'll have a famine...It's just a thought I had.
The daughter, however, did not like being sold, and asked Neptune to save her. And so whenever she was sold, he would turn her into an animal so that she could run away, back to her father, who would sell her again for more money.
However, at the end his hunger got that best of him and he ate himself.
This gives me a disturbing mental image of a skull trying to eat its nose.
When I read this myth I found there was a cool connection with cutting forests in it. Even though I realize that the Greeks probably knew nothing about the the dangers of cutting too many forests when this myth was written, and this was not meant in any way to be taken as I have taken it, it made me think that maybe this was a warning to us humans. There's this one African quote that goes along the lines of, "Only when the last fish has been fished, when the last cow has been slayed, when the last river has been drunk, will humans realize they cannot eat money." We're cutting down all the forests so that we can get money, and maybe once we have done that too much of that, we'll have a famine...It's just a thought I had.
Christian Morals
On Friday, you complained that we were all judging these myths by "Christian morals." I disagree with you on this.
I don't think of myself as particularly religious. Four years at Catholic school pretty much cured any interest I ever had in God. However, like most Americans, I was raised on Christian morals, and they are the only way I can perceive the world. I believe that lying, cheating, and adultery is bad. And I believe entirely that the merciless slaughter of a village who did no other crime than not answer the door in the middle of the night is positively immoral. Maybe that makes me a narrow-minded, self-righteous, nun-in-training; I don't know. The fact reminds that it is so, and though I realize that the Greeks were raised differently than me, that maybe they thought that it was okay to do that, I, personally, will never be able to acknowledge that without thinking to myself, "Good God, how could they ever believe that?" "Christian morals" are the way I judge everything that has to do with crime, murder, punishment, and to pretend otherwise would be hypocritical of me. When I give my opinion on any myth, I give my real opinion, not how you think I should feel. If that's wrong, well, there's nothing I can do about it.
I also disagree with the example of the gods not liking human sacrifice, which means that they do have some morals. I hate hornets. Hornets are evil, creepy little creatures that make horrible buzzing sounds all the time, and take advantage of their smallness and rapidity to ruthlessly attack us humans. However, if someone were to walk up to me, offer me a dead hornet, and say, "Oh, Great Sophia, this here is a hornet that I slayed in your honor so that I might sacrifice it to you," my immediate reaction would be along the lines of, "Ewww, get away from me, you sicko!!!" This does not mean that I like hornets any better. It does not mean that I am unhappy that there is one hornet less in the world. It means that I find dead hornets disgusting, and I cannot understand why anyone would think I would like the cadaver of one, and I would slap the person who gave it to me. That was probably the god's reaction to getting a human sacrifice. Disgust.
So that's why I'm going to continue applying "Christian morals" to my blog entries.
I don't think of myself as particularly religious. Four years at Catholic school pretty much cured any interest I ever had in God. However, like most Americans, I was raised on Christian morals, and they are the only way I can perceive the world. I believe that lying, cheating, and adultery is bad. And I believe entirely that the merciless slaughter of a village who did no other crime than not answer the door in the middle of the night is positively immoral. Maybe that makes me a narrow-minded, self-righteous, nun-in-training; I don't know. The fact reminds that it is so, and though I realize that the Greeks were raised differently than me, that maybe they thought that it was okay to do that, I, personally, will never be able to acknowledge that without thinking to myself, "Good God, how could they ever believe that?" "Christian morals" are the way I judge everything that has to do with crime, murder, punishment, and to pretend otherwise would be hypocritical of me. When I give my opinion on any myth, I give my real opinion, not how you think I should feel. If that's wrong, well, there's nothing I can do about it.
I also disagree with the example of the gods not liking human sacrifice, which means that they do have some morals. I hate hornets. Hornets are evil, creepy little creatures that make horrible buzzing sounds all the time, and take advantage of their smallness and rapidity to ruthlessly attack us humans. However, if someone were to walk up to me, offer me a dead hornet, and say, "Oh, Great Sophia, this here is a hornet that I slayed in your honor so that I might sacrifice it to you," my immediate reaction would be along the lines of, "Ewww, get away from me, you sicko!!!" This does not mean that I like hornets any better. It does not mean that I am unhappy that there is one hornet less in the world. It means that I find dead hornets disgusting, and I cannot understand why anyone would think I would like the cadaver of one, and I would slap the person who gave it to me. That was probably the god's reaction to getting a human sacrifice. Disgust.
So that's why I'm going to continue applying "Christian morals" to my blog entries.
miércoles, 19 de septiembre de 2007
Rhetoric in Op-Ed
Our Imaginary Friend
by: Geoffrey Wheatcroft
WHAT are the bugles blowin’ for?” asks the soldier in Rudyard Kipling’s haunting poem. In Iraq the other day they were sounding the retreat, as the British Army departed the city of Basra amid mutual recriminations. Gen. Jack Keane, the retired vice chief of staff of the United States Army, says that the Brits messed up, while Gen. Sir Mike Jackson argues that Donald Rumsfeld’s entire plan was “intellectually bankrupt.” Then last week, Senator John Kerry sarcastically asked Gen. David Petraeus if the British had done the right thing, in which case maybe America should follow suit.
Although General Petraeus himself predictably and properly said in London yesterday that he was proud of his British allies, President Bush says he has no intention of withdrawing from Iraq any time soon. And there is no doubt that the White House is displeased with Gordon Brown, the new prime minister, for not only pulling out of Basra but also pulling back from his predecessor’s intimate embrace of the Bush administration. Is it possible that those buglers were also sounding the last post for the Anglo-American alliance in Iraq — or even for the supposed “special relationship” between the two countries?
This relationship has always been a curious notion. Along with the even more dubious idea that Churchill popularized of a community of “English-speaking peoples,” it is sustained by make-believe and rewritten history. Americans don’t often use the phrase, but there was an almost comical exception when Senator John McCain visited England last year. “The special relationship between our two countries will endure throughout the 21st century,” he said. “I say that with total confidence because it’s lasted for 200 years.”
It has what? The senator’s “200 years” would take us back to the early years of the 19th century, or let’s say to 1812. What was special about the relationship that year was that the two countries were at war. Some of us take modest patriotic pride recalling the day that our brave lads burned the White House. And when he sings “The Star-Spangled Banner,” can Senator McCain have forgotten that it was a British rocket’s red glare?
For the next century the two countries were decidedly more often on bad terms than good. A large part of the British Army was stationed in Canada to protect it from its southern neighbor, and with good reason. Before the Civil War, Sir Robert Peel warned Parliament about the grave danger of an American war; during it, the secretary of state, William Seward, wanted to declare war on England and was supposedly restrained only by Lincoln himself (“One war at a time, Mr. Seward”); after it, there was a bitter dispute about a Confederate warship built in England.
In 1895 the two countries nearly went to war over a trivial border dispute in South America, and it was recorded at the time that in America a war with England would be the most popular of wars. And again in 1914: not only did Woodrow Wilson worry that he might need to intervene on the German side because of the British naval blockade but it was reckoned that more Americans would have wanted to fight against England than for it.
The two did quite briefly fight together in two world wars, but only Tony Blair, after telling a grieving New York six years ago that “My father’s generation went through the blitz; they know what it is like to suffer this deep tragedy and attack,” could have added: “There was one country and one people which stood by us at that time. That country was America, and those people were the American people.” He meant the blitz in the winter of 1940-41, when the United States was conspicuously neutral.
And yet perhaps that quaint version of history helps explain Mr. Blair’s decision to commit British troops to an invasion of Iraq. Since 1949 the two have been allies in NATO, a pact of mutual defense “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area,” which would not appear to cover the Middle East. But then Mr. Blair believed it his duty to support Washington, because “it would be more damaging to long-term world peace and security if the Americans alone defeated Saddam Hussein than if they had international support to do so.”
That’s quite close to saying, “Their country right or wrong,” and it is a novel doctrine. Even during the NATO years the two countries have been very far from standing side by side in each other’s every endeavor outside that North Atlantic area. In 1956, Eisenhower was appalled by the Suez caper, when the British conspired with France and Israel to attack Egypt, and pulled the rug from under the conspirators, and 10 years later the British Army did not serve in Vietnam as Lyndon Johnson had hoped.
Even in the 1980s, Margaret Thatcher, despite her obvious kinship with Ronald Reagan, was a much less uncritical supporter of Washington than Mr. Blair later was. She was dismayed by the initial lukewarm response from Washington when Argentina invaded the Falklands, then enraged by the American invasion of Grenada.
And she said something at that time that might usefully have been repeated later. The Western democracies use force “to preserve our way of life — we do not use it to walk into other people’s countries.” If a new law is ordained that the United States will intervene wherever there is a regime that it dislikes, Mrs. Thatcher said, “then we are going to have really terrible wars in the world.”
She never spoke more prescient words. But at least one beneficial consequence of this really terrible war in Iraq would be if the pretense of the “special relationship” were dropped for good. We are two friendly countries, with many shared values, and some common interests. Isn’t that enough?
This argument definitely uses blame. It tries to convince us that the U.S. and the U.K. are not as good allies as they are supposed to be by bringing up instances of past wars and indifference between the two countries. It gives us several examples of when England warred against America, or when the America didn't help Britain in it's time of need, which is blaming each other for past misdeeds and using the past tense to support this opinion.
martes, 18 de septiembre de 2007
Ariadne
Ariadne was the daughter of King Minos. After helping Theseus escape from the labyrinth, she was carried to island of Naxos in her sleep, and Theseus ditched her and returned home.
When she woke up, she was heartbroken, and Venus took pity on her and decided to give her an immortal husband.
While Ariadne wallowed in self-pity, Bacchus found her, comforted her, and fell in love with her. At their marriage he gave her a golden crown, and on her death it turned into a constellation.
It must be sad for all the gods to fall in love with mortals, then watch them dying. Why don't that gods have a rule that however they sleep with gets turned into a god? Although since the gods tend to be rather promiscuous, there soon would be too many gods to fit on Olympus. Still, the couples like Cupid and Psyche are pretty lucky.
When she woke up, she was heartbroken, and Venus took pity on her and decided to give her an immortal husband.
While Ariadne wallowed in self-pity, Bacchus found her, comforted her, and fell in love with her. At their marriage he gave her a golden crown, and on her death it turned into a constellation.
It must be sad for all the gods to fall in love with mortals, then watch them dying. Why don't that gods have a rule that however they sleep with gets turned into a god? Although since the gods tend to be rather promiscuous, there soon would be too many gods to fit on Olympus. Still, the couples like Cupid and Psyche are pretty lucky.
Rhoecus
Rhoecus once saved the life of a nymph, and in return he asked her to fall in love with him. She agrees, yet tells him that he needs to be constant, and that a bee will always tell him when he can come see her.
One day he's thirsty and doesn't pay attention to the bee. She punishes him by making him blind.
This is another instance of cruel and unusual punishment. It was not really his fault he didn't remember what the bee was, and if she loved him (as he had ordered her to do), she would not have blinded him.
If I had had one wish from the nymphs, I would've said, "never punish for anything I ever do." That way I could pick flowers without worrying about being turned into a tree.
One day he's thirsty and doesn't pay attention to the bee. She punishes him by making him blind.
This is another instance of cruel and unusual punishment. It was not really his fault he didn't remember what the bee was, and if she loved him (as he had ordered her to do), she would not have blinded him.
If I had had one wish from the nymphs, I would've said, "never punish for anything I ever do." That way I could pick flowers without worrying about being turned into a tree.
The Spinx
Before I start this blog, I would like to ask one question: What is the deal with all these fathers hearing that their grand/son is destined to kill them, try to murder them first, fail, then years get killed randomly by them? That's something that really bugs me about spy novels/myths: if I wanted to kill someone, I would point a gun/arrow at their head, shoot, check their breathing, then relax. I wouldn't say, "Oh, how 'bout I tie Johnny Jr. to a tree on the side of a busy street where kind-hearted peasants are known to walk by and hope that he starves without anyone bothering to help him?" It's stupid!
Anyways, moving on...
Laius is a king who hears one of the above-mentioned prophecies, does the above-mentioned thing, and has his son Oedipus end up growing as a peasant.
One day they cross each other on the road to Thebes, and due to the fact that neither of them behave in a very courteous manner, Laius and Oedipus' horse get killed. The oracle is fullfilled (no one saw that coming).
When Oedipus gets home, he learns that a spinx has been terrorizing the villagers, telling them a riddle then killing them if they don't know the answer. None of them knows the answer, so there are many, many deaths. Oedipus, however, is not afraid. He goes up to the sphinx and she aks him a riddle, which is as follows: What animal walks on four legs in the morning, on two at noon, and upon four at night? The answer: Humans.
The sphinx is distraught at the fact someone solved her riddle, and she kills herself, to which I have nothing to say but: "Jeez, take a chill pill. Plenty of people have solved my riddles before yet I'm still alive. Follow my example."
The peasants are very grateful to Oedipus, and they make him king, which is when he unknowingly marries his mother (no comment). When they find out, however, instead of a tearful, cheesy, soap opera-y, mother/son reunion, she kills herslef and he tears his eyes out (although I suppose that would make a good soap opera too. He wanders around until he dies.
The End.
I think I see a point to reading all of these myths after all. They explain references in literature.
For example: In the fourth Harry Potter book, Harry is confronted by a sphinx in the Third Task, who tells him that if he doesn't answer her question correctly she will "savagely attack" him. The difference is that here he has a choice on whether or not he wants to answer, and when he does she smiles, and does not kill herself. Unless that was really a tragic and bitter smile right before her gory death is edited out of the book. Only J.K. Rowling knows.
Anyways, moving on...
Laius is a king who hears one of the above-mentioned prophecies, does the above-mentioned thing, and has his son Oedipus end up growing as a peasant.
One day they cross each other on the road to Thebes, and due to the fact that neither of them behave in a very courteous manner, Laius and Oedipus' horse get killed. The oracle is fullfilled (no one saw that coming).
When Oedipus gets home, he learns that a spinx has been terrorizing the villagers, telling them a riddle then killing them if they don't know the answer. None of them knows the answer, so there are many, many deaths. Oedipus, however, is not afraid. He goes up to the sphinx and she aks him a riddle, which is as follows: What animal walks on four legs in the morning, on two at noon, and upon four at night? The answer: Humans.
The sphinx is distraught at the fact someone solved her riddle, and she kills herself, to which I have nothing to say but: "Jeez, take a chill pill. Plenty of people have solved my riddles before yet I'm still alive. Follow my example."
The peasants are very grateful to Oedipus, and they make him king, which is when he unknowingly marries his mother (no comment). When they find out, however, instead of a tearful, cheesy, soap opera-y, mother/son reunion, she kills herslef and he tears his eyes out (although I suppose that would make a good soap opera too. He wanders around until he dies.
The End.
I think I see a point to reading all of these myths after all. They explain references in literature.
For example: In the fourth Harry Potter book, Harry is confronted by a sphinx in the Third Task, who tells him that if he doesn't answer her question correctly she will "savagely attack" him. The difference is that here he has a choice on whether or not he wants to answer, and when he does she smiles, and does not kill herself. Unless that was really a tragic and bitter smile right before her gory death is edited out of the book. Only J.K. Rowling knows.
lunes, 17 de septiembre de 2007
Perseus & Atlas
Perseus, after killing Medusa, went on a journey. One night he arrived at the home of King Atlas, and asked for lodging for the night, claiming that he was Jupiter's son, which was not a wise move considering that Atlas had heard that a son of his would one day steal his golden apples, and kicks him out.
Understandably, Perseus is outraged an as a punishment shows Atlas the Gorgon's head. Atlas is turned into a mountain, and the gods make him carry the sky.
I wonder how they sky was supported before Atlas came along. Did the Greeks just believe that it just supported itself yet got considerably weaker as time went on, and needed a place to rest? I have to admit, those Greeks had a pretty clever way of answering their own questions, and I like the way all those myths relate to won other, like one long, cleverly woven, tale (mind, I don't say I think they were right, just that they were very clever).
Again, I don't like the way those heroes/gods treated anyone who displeased them. They punished people waaaaaaay to harshly. I can think of plenty of people who haven't always been as nice as they could be to me, yet I've never had the urge to turn them into chopsticks (or at least I've always resisted it). Did they think that because they were of more value than humans, people who offended them should be punished more harshly?
Understandably, Perseus is outraged an as a punishment shows Atlas the Gorgon's head. Atlas is turned into a mountain, and the gods make him carry the sky.
I wonder how they sky was supported before Atlas came along. Did the Greeks just believe that it just supported itself yet got considerably weaker as time went on, and needed a place to rest? I have to admit, those Greeks had a pretty clever way of answering their own questions, and I like the way all those myths relate to won other, like one long, cleverly woven, tale (mind, I don't say I think they were right, just that they were very clever).
Again, I don't like the way those heroes/gods treated anyone who displeased them. They punished people waaaaaaay to harshly. I can think of plenty of people who haven't always been as nice as they could be to me, yet I've never had the urge to turn them into chopsticks (or at least I've always resisted it). Did they think that because they were of more value than humans, people who offended them should be punished more harshly?
Perseus & Medusa
I keep finding all these extremely short myths in this book. This one was barely a page long, whereas the other versions of it I'd read took five hours to read. I wonder if there's any original myth, and all the others are copies of it?
Anywho, Perseus' grandaddy had heard that his daughter's son would be his downfall, so he looked them both in a trunk and set them in the sea (how he managed that is beyond me. Didn't the mother say, "Hey Daddy, why are you locking me up in a trunk? Are we going on a trip? Fun!"), and a fisherman found them. He sent them to his king, Polydectes, who befriended them.
When Perseus was older, Polydectes sent him to kill Medusa, a once-beautiful maiden who had bragged to Minerva that she was prettier than her and in return got a head full of snakes and became so ugly that anyone who looked at her was turned to stone. Apparently, she became horribly cruel, although how anyone knows that is beyond me. Maybe she was just looking for a friend, saw a cute little sailor and said hi, yet the sailor was turned to stone and couldn't return the greeting.
Perseus got winged shoes from Mercury, and from Minerva a shield so shiny he could see Medusa's face's reflection on it and killed her. Although since he obviously wasn't using the shield to shied himself, wouldn't it have made more sense just to get a mirror?
Anywho, Perseus' grandaddy had heard that his daughter's son would be his downfall, so he looked them both in a trunk and set them in the sea (how he managed that is beyond me. Didn't the mother say, "Hey Daddy, why are you locking me up in a trunk? Are we going on a trip? Fun!"), and a fisherman found them. He sent them to his king, Polydectes, who befriended them.
When Perseus was older, Polydectes sent him to kill Medusa, a once-beautiful maiden who had bragged to Minerva that she was prettier than her and in return got a head full of snakes and became so ugly that anyone who looked at her was turned to stone. Apparently, she became horribly cruel, although how anyone knows that is beyond me. Maybe she was just looking for a friend, saw a cute little sailor and said hi, yet the sailor was turned to stone and couldn't return the greeting.
Perseus got winged shoes from Mercury, and from Minerva a shield so shiny he could see Medusa's face's reflection on it and killed her. Although since he obviously wasn't using the shield to shied himself, wouldn't it have made more sense just to get a mirror?
sábado, 15 de septiembre de 2007
Clytie
Clytie was in love with Apollo, who didn't love him back. She spent all day staring at his carriage, the sun, as it passed over in the heavens. The gods turned her into a sunflower whose face always pointed to the sun.
I sort of liked this myth, because it's a good way to explain how flowers came to be, although I can't help but think that poor Clytie must've been blind by the time she died. All that staring at the sun can't be good for your eyes.
I sort of liked this myth, because it's a good way to explain how flowers came to be, although I can't help but think that poor Clytie must've been blind by the time she died. All that staring at the sun can't be good for your eyes.
Hero & Leander
This is an amazingly (and wonderfully) short myth.
Hero is a priestess whom Leander is in love with. Every night Leander swims across the river to see her, and they spend time together. One day the current was too strong. When Hero realized Leander had died, she killed herself.
The End.
There's not much to say about this myth. I think the world would've managed just fine if it had never been thought up.
Hero is a priestess whom Leander is in love with. Every night Leander swims across the river to see her, and they spend time together. One day the current was too strong. When Hero realized Leander had died, she killed herself.
The End.
There's not much to say about this myth. I think the world would've managed just fine if it had never been thought up.
Cupid & Psyche
Psyche was a maiden so beautiful that men stopped worshiping Venus and bowed before her instead. Now, Venus was not very happy about this, and asked Cupid to avenge her.
Cupid agreed, and intended to make Psyche fall in love with a monster and men praise her beauty but not be interested in marrying her. However, he wounds himself with his own arrow while staring a Psyche, and we all know what Cupid's arrows can do.
So no man ever proposes to Psyche, and she wonders what's wrong with her. Her family could consult a priest, who tells them that her husband is a monster that awaits her on a mountaintop.
Psyche goes there, and finds herself in a wonderful palace. Her husband came to her every night and they loved each other, yet he forbade her to ever look at him.
One day Psyche invited her sisters over, and they told her that she should disobey her husband and see what he looked like. When they left, she did so, and found herself gazing at none other than Cupid!
He wakes up, and is extremely angry that she has disobeyed his order. He runs away, and Psyche goes to her sister. They're really happy about it, however, and they both jump off a cliff in the hope that Cupid will save them and marry them. Their hopes are not answered.
Anyway, Pomona is really sad and decided that the only way to win Cupid back is to get Venus to approve of her. Venus, however, is not so inclined and sets a bunch of impossible tasks for Psyche to manage.
However, all the gods take pity on her, and help her accomplish her tasks. Venus is annoyed, yet a talk with Zeus convinces her to let Cupid and Psyche marry. They do so, and they have a little daughter named Pleasure together.
Isn't Cupid supposed to be a little boy? I don't know why, but I've always pictured him as a little cherub wandering around shooting people. I guess not though, or else Psyche would have been nastily suprised when she first saw him.
I really think I'm getting sick of all these myths. I can muster no pleasure when I open that way-too-long book, and I do not feel the least bit of enthusiasm when I write these blogs. All tose myths are so similar! They're all either people who fall in love and either get turned into potatoes or live happily ever affter, or people who annoy a god and get punished. That's it! I don't see why we have to read five thousand stories with the same basic plot.
Cupid agreed, and intended to make Psyche fall in love with a monster and men praise her beauty but not be interested in marrying her. However, he wounds himself with his own arrow while staring a Psyche, and we all know what Cupid's arrows can do.
So no man ever proposes to Psyche, and she wonders what's wrong with her. Her family could consult a priest, who tells them that her husband is a monster that awaits her on a mountaintop.
Psyche goes there, and finds herself in a wonderful palace. Her husband came to her every night and they loved each other, yet he forbade her to ever look at him.
One day Psyche invited her sisters over, and they told her that she should disobey her husband and see what he looked like. When they left, she did so, and found herself gazing at none other than Cupid!
He wakes up, and is extremely angry that she has disobeyed his order. He runs away, and Psyche goes to her sister. They're really happy about it, however, and they both jump off a cliff in the hope that Cupid will save them and marry them. Their hopes are not answered.
Anyway, Pomona is really sad and decided that the only way to win Cupid back is to get Venus to approve of her. Venus, however, is not so inclined and sets a bunch of impossible tasks for Psyche to manage.
However, all the gods take pity on her, and help her accomplish her tasks. Venus is annoyed, yet a talk with Zeus convinces her to let Cupid and Psyche marry. They do so, and they have a little daughter named Pleasure together.
Isn't Cupid supposed to be a little boy? I don't know why, but I've always pictured him as a little cherub wandering around shooting people. I guess not though, or else Psyche would have been nastily suprised when she first saw him.
I really think I'm getting sick of all these myths. I can muster no pleasure when I open that way-too-long book, and I do not feel the least bit of enthusiasm when I write these blogs. All tose myths are so similar! They're all either people who fall in love and either get turned into potatoes or live happily ever affter, or people who annoy a god and get punished. That's it! I don't see why we have to read five thousand stories with the same basic plot.
Vertumnus & Pomona
Even though this myth ends well, and I like happy ending, I thought it was pointless. Usually all myth explain how something cam to be, but this one is just a rather pathetic love story.
Pomona is a wood nymph, & Vertumnus is one of her suitors. Pomona, however, is not interested in marriage and spurns all of Vertumnus' attempts to seduce her.
One day he becomes sick of it, and dresses as an old lady to tell her that she should fall in love with her or else she would become a statue. Then he turns back into his usual shape.
Pomona finds these arguments very convincing, and falls passionately in love with Vertumnus.
The End.
As I said, a very pointless myth.
Pomona is a wood nymph, & Vertumnus is one of her suitors. Pomona, however, is not interested in marriage and spurns all of Vertumnus' attempts to seduce her.
One day he becomes sick of it, and dresses as an old lady to tell her that she should fall in love with her or else she would become a statue. Then he turns back into his usual shape.
Pomona finds these arguments very convincing, and falls passionately in love with Vertumnus.
The End.
As I said, a very pointless myth.
miércoles, 12 de septiembre de 2007
Examples of Rhetoric
"It's the obvious choice — a thoroughfare packed with stores and cafes, and the scene of an increasingly congested parade of the neighborhood's would-be trendsetters...." nytimes.com, "Not cool? Give It Time," an article talking about a neighborhood somewhere
I think this uses logos. It tells us that we should go there because it's the logical place to hang out-there are shops, cafes, boutiques, etc. This is the smart way to argue.
"...Mr. Obama is falling directly in line with the public sentiment on the war and the path forward...." nytimes.com "Obama Iraq Speech," in which Mr. Obama attempts to convince the government to withdraw our troops from Iraq.
This uses pathos, because it attempts to use U.S. citizens feelings towards the war in Iraq to win an argument.
“...That is unacceptable to me; it is unacceptable to the American people...” nytimes.com, "Democrats Set To Challenge Bush Iraq Plan." The title says it all.
This is also using pathos by appealing to the anti-war feelings of Americans.
“...People have often said about the Clintons, they don’t care who they hang out with as long as the people can be helpful to them...” nytimes.com, "Clinton Sees Fear Realized in Trouble With Donor," which basically talks about how Hillary Clinton's donors are ditching her.
This is a pathos argument, because it tells people that the Clinton's are known for being brown-nosers.
"...His two stints as prime minister were seriously marred by corruption..." nytimes.com, "Running On Empty," which talks about a general promoting himself.
This uses ethos because it tries to convince people that the General is not trustworthy, due to his past as a corrupt politician.
I think this uses logos. It tells us that we should go there because it's the logical place to hang out-there are shops, cafes, boutiques, etc. This is the smart way to argue.
"...Mr. Obama is falling directly in line with the public sentiment on the war and the path forward...." nytimes.com "Obama Iraq Speech," in which Mr. Obama attempts to convince the government to withdraw our troops from Iraq.
This uses pathos, because it attempts to use U.S. citizens feelings towards the war in Iraq to win an argument.
“...That is unacceptable to me; it is unacceptable to the American people...” nytimes.com, "Democrats Set To Challenge Bush Iraq Plan." The title says it all.
This is also using pathos by appealing to the anti-war feelings of Americans.
“...People have often said about the Clintons, they don’t care who they hang out with as long as the people can be helpful to them...” nytimes.com, "Clinton Sees Fear Realized in Trouble With Donor," which basically talks about how Hillary Clinton's donors are ditching her.
This is a pathos argument, because it tells people that the Clinton's are known for being brown-nosers.
"...His two stints as prime minister were seriously marred by corruption..." nytimes.com, "Running On Empty," which talks about a general promoting himself.
This uses ethos because it tries to convince people that the General is not trustworthy, due to his past as a corrupt politician.
martes, 11 de septiembre de 2007
Apollo & Hyacinthus
Apollo and Hyacinthus were friends, and Apollo was really fond of him.
One day they were playing quoits, and Apollo threw his spear really far. Hyacinthus was amazed, and he followed it and tried to catch it. However, it rebounded off the ground (some think that Zephyrus, the West wind, who was also really fond of Hyacinthus and was jealous of his preference of Apollo, changed the wind to make what happened next happen), hit him in the head, and killed him.
Apollo was devastated, and he turned Hyacinthus' blood into a flower.
I have a question: If Zephyrus was really fond of Hyacinthus, then why did he turn him into a flower? Shouldn't he have manipulated Hyacinthus into doing something that would make Apollo dislike him? Wouldn't that have been more logical?
One day they were playing quoits, and Apollo threw his spear really far. Hyacinthus was amazed, and he followed it and tried to catch it. However, it rebounded off the ground (some think that Zephyrus, the West wind, who was also really fond of Hyacinthus and was jealous of his preference of Apollo, changed the wind to make what happened next happen), hit him in the head, and killed him.
Apollo was devastated, and he turned Hyacinthus' blood into a flower.
I have a question: If Zephyrus was really fond of Hyacinthus, then why did he turn him into a flower? Shouldn't he have manipulated Hyacinthus into doing something that would make Apollo dislike him? Wouldn't that have been more logical?
Venus & Adonis
One day Venus was playing with her son Cupid, when he accidentally cuts her with his arrow. Obviously, Cupid's arrows make people fall in love, and so when she saw a beautiful youth called Adonis, she fell in love with him.
They were together, and they hunted a lot. Venus warned him to be careful when he was hunting, or he might get killed and she would be sad. Adonis, however, is a brave and noble youth that couldn't care less about what she said, and so he gets killed by a boar.
Venus is heartbroken, and she decides to turn his blood into flowers. She does so, and those flowers become known as the Anemones.
There's nothing really interesting about this story, except that it's kinda funny how Cupid makes his mommy fall in love with a random stranger. Though I wonder why he couldn't have made her fall in love with someone as ugly as Quasimodo, and a crybaby and a coward to boot. That would have been hilarious.
They were together, and they hunted a lot. Venus warned him to be careful when he was hunting, or he might get killed and she would be sad. Adonis, however, is a brave and noble youth that couldn't care less about what she said, and so he gets killed by a boar.
Venus is heartbroken, and she decides to turn his blood into flowers. She does so, and those flowers become known as the Anemones.
There's nothing really interesting about this story, except that it's kinda funny how Cupid makes his mommy fall in love with a random stranger. Though I wonder why he couldn't have made her fall in love with someone as ugly as Quasimodo, and a crybaby and a coward to boot. That would have been hilarious.
Dryope
This is a very short and very pointless myth.
Basically Dryope, her sister, and her baby go looking for flowers. Dryope pluck off a purple flower from a branch, not realizing the branch is actually a nymph in disguise, who proceeds to turn Dryope into a tree (although she has time to say goodbye to her sister, baby, and husband, and warn them to be careful to watch what flowers they pick from now one).
This is the kind of myth I hate. A mortal makes a simple mistake, and she gets turned into a tree. It's not fair! How was Dryope supposed to know that the tree was a nymph? Was there any warning? And what right does that nymph have to turn her into a tree? It's completely ridiculous, and it just goes to show how little gods respect human life.
Actually, that made me think about the clip we listened to today in English class. While I agree that gods and Hollywood movie stars are similar in some ways, they also have many differences. Stars, though they do not have to follow every single law, and are (very lightly, but still) punished when they break them. Gods can do whatever they want to, and no one says/does anything. Also, people can say things like, "Brad Pitt is such a loser, he's a horrible actor and he's not even that hot," and no one cares, but I bet that if Kostov had said something like, "Zeus is such a loser, he's a horrible god and he's not even that hot," Kostov would've been struck by lightning.
Basically Dryope, her sister, and her baby go looking for flowers. Dryope pluck off a purple flower from a branch, not realizing the branch is actually a nymph in disguise, who proceeds to turn Dryope into a tree (although she has time to say goodbye to her sister, baby, and husband, and warn them to be careful to watch what flowers they pick from now one).
This is the kind of myth I hate. A mortal makes a simple mistake, and she gets turned into a tree. It's not fair! How was Dryope supposed to know that the tree was a nymph? Was there any warning? And what right does that nymph have to turn her into a tree? It's completely ridiculous, and it just goes to show how little gods respect human life.
Actually, that made me think about the clip we listened to today in English class. While I agree that gods and Hollywood movie stars are similar in some ways, they also have many differences. Stars, though they do not have to follow every single law, and are (very lightly, but still) punished when they break them. Gods can do whatever they want to, and no one says/does anything. Also, people can say things like, "Brad Pitt is such a loser, he's a horrible actor and he's not even that hot," and no one cares, but I bet that if Kostov had said something like, "Zeus is such a loser, he's a horrible god and he's not even that hot," Kostov would've been struck by lightning.
Pygmalion
This is a cute myth, and (for once!) it ends well.
Pygmalion hated women (and we hate you too, you chauvinist pig).
Yet he was a sculptor, and one day he made a statue of a maiden so beautiful he fell in love with her. Yet, she was a statue, and so it was not exactly a share love.
One day, however, there was a festival. Pygmalion asked from Venus that he make his sculptor real, and she did so. When he got home, the statue was real (isn't that kind of incest? He made her, so technically he's her father. Oh well, at least he doesn't have to deal with in-laws).
They had a son, Paphos, after whom the city, sacred to Venus, was named.
Pygmalion hated women (and we hate you too, you chauvinist pig).
Yet he was a sculptor, and one day he made a statue of a maiden so beautiful he fell in love with her. Yet, she was a statue, and so it was not exactly a share love.
One day, however, there was a festival. Pygmalion asked from Venus that he make his sculptor real, and she did so. When he got home, the statue was real (isn't that kind of incest? He made her, so technically he's her father. Oh well, at least he doesn't have to deal with in-laws).
They had a son, Paphos, after whom the city, sacred to Venus, was named.
Glaucus & Scylla
Glaucus ate a herb that made him want to become a fish. He jumped in the water and convinced the gods to make him the first merman.
One day he fell in love with a maiden called Scylla. She, however, was repulsed by him and even though he tried to touch her heart she scorned him.
So he asked help from the witch Circe, who told him that he should fall in love with someone else. However, he said that was impossible, and Circe became angry at Scylla. She decided to turn her into a monster, and apparently later on she would kill some of Ulysses's men.
I don't think it's really fair how the gods or witches punish people for not being in love with them. No one can look at someone, feel repulsed/scared of them, and decide to become passionately in love with them. At least the gods could try to convince the mortals to love them, instead of just saying, "You don't love me? Fine, I'll turn you into a coconut." It's ridiculous!
Also, I don't believe in love at first sight, and that's what always happens to those Greeks. If someone's beautiful, they're in love. I've met a lot of beautiful people whom I dislike intensely. Maybe you can look at someone and want to be their friend because they have kind eyes or they look like they're two when they smile, but you don't love them. You just have a good first impression. That's another things that bothers me about all these love myths.
And don't those gods have any pride? If you like someone but they've made it clear they don't like you back, you pretend you don't care. You don't go chasing after them. It's called "dignity."
One day he fell in love with a maiden called Scylla. She, however, was repulsed by him and even though he tried to touch her heart she scorned him.
So he asked help from the witch Circe, who told him that he should fall in love with someone else. However, he said that was impossible, and Circe became angry at Scylla. She decided to turn her into a monster, and apparently later on she would kill some of Ulysses's men.
I don't think it's really fair how the gods or witches punish people for not being in love with them. No one can look at someone, feel repulsed/scared of them, and decide to become passionately in love with them. At least the gods could try to convince the mortals to love them, instead of just saying, "You don't love me? Fine, I'll turn you into a coconut." It's ridiculous!
Also, I don't believe in love at first sight, and that's what always happens to those Greeks. If someone's beautiful, they're in love. I've met a lot of beautiful people whom I dislike intensely. Maybe you can look at someone and want to be their friend because they have kind eyes or they look like they're two when they smile, but you don't love them. You just have a good first impression. That's another things that bothers me about all these love myths.
And don't those gods have any pride? If you like someone but they've made it clear they don't like you back, you pretend you don't care. You don't go chasing after them. It's called "dignity."
Midas
I'd also heard a different version of this myth before, and I think the one I heard was better.
Midas was a king who did a favor to a schoolmaster. In return, he said he'd grant him one wish. Midas wished that everything he touched would turn to gold. It is done, and Midas has fun touching everything and making lots of gold.
Then when he tries to eat at a feast he prepared to celebrate his new gift, he realizes that even his food turns to gold, which makes it rather difficult to eat.
He gets rid of his gift, then goes live in the country, becoming a faithful worshiper of Pan, the god of fields.
One day Pan challenges Apollo to a music contest, and of course Apollo wins. However, Midas insists that Pan is better, so Apollo gives him donkey ears.
Midas is very ashamed, and always wear a turban to hide his ears. Only his barber knows his secret, and it's such a huge one that he tells the grass, which tells everyone (which is why it makes a whispery noise whenever the wind goes through it).
The version I heard of Midas was that when he tried to touch his daughter, she turned to gold, and he was so horrified at what he'd done that he killed himself. Way to take the easy way out.
I'd also seen a movie based on a modern Midas, except it was about a teenager who helped a neighborhood witch, in return for that gift. Like Midas, the boy quickly realizes that his awesome new gift isn't all gold (if you'll excuse my pun) when he tries to eat a hamburger that turned to gold (my favorite part in the movie. A gold hamburger! What a sight), and when he also turns his friend to gold.
However, the witch tells him how to get rid of the "gift" and he does so. And they lived happily ever after.
Midas was a king who did a favor to a schoolmaster. In return, he said he'd grant him one wish. Midas wished that everything he touched would turn to gold. It is done, and Midas has fun touching everything and making lots of gold.
Then when he tries to eat at a feast he prepared to celebrate his new gift, he realizes that even his food turns to gold, which makes it rather difficult to eat.
He gets rid of his gift, then goes live in the country, becoming a faithful worshiper of Pan, the god of fields.
One day Pan challenges Apollo to a music contest, and of course Apollo wins. However, Midas insists that Pan is better, so Apollo gives him donkey ears.
Midas is very ashamed, and always wear a turban to hide his ears. Only his barber knows his secret, and it's such a huge one that he tells the grass, which tells everyone (which is why it makes a whispery noise whenever the wind goes through it).
The version I heard of Midas was that when he tried to touch his daughter, she turned to gold, and he was so horrified at what he'd done that he killed himself. Way to take the easy way out.
I'd also seen a movie based on a modern Midas, except it was about a teenager who helped a neighborhood witch, in return for that gift. Like Midas, the boy quickly realizes that his awesome new gift isn't all gold (if you'll excuse my pun) when he tries to eat a hamburger that turned to gold (my favorite part in the movie. A gold hamburger! What a sight), and when he also turns his friend to gold.
However, the witch tells him how to get rid of the "gift" and he does so. And they lived happily ever after.
Phaeton
I'd heard this myth before. It's about Apollo's son. He claimed that he was the son of a god, and his friends laughed at him. One day he got mad and decided to travel to India to see his father.
Apollo was delighted to meet him, and he said he'd grant him any one wish. Phaeton answered that he would like to drive the chariot of the sun, and although his father desperately tries to convince him not to, he doesn't listen.
So he goes on the chariot and loses control, going way too close to the earth. He causes enormous devastation, including forming several deserts and destroying great cities. Finally Zeus gets sick of it and strikes him with lightning. His sisters mourn, and they become weeping willows.
I actually really like this myth. I think it's a pretty cool one, and it really shows the difference between mortals and gods. Phaeton, though he is the son of a god, is still a mortal and as such is not powerful enough to control as wild a thing as the sun, while Apollo manages to do it everyday.
The moral of this story is: Do not be arrogant, and do not bite off more than you can chew.
Apollo was delighted to meet him, and he said he'd grant him any one wish. Phaeton answered that he would like to drive the chariot of the sun, and although his father desperately tries to convince him not to, he doesn't listen.
So he goes on the chariot and loses control, going way too close to the earth. He causes enormous devastation, including forming several deserts and destroying great cities. Finally Zeus gets sick of it and strikes him with lightning. His sisters mourn, and they become weeping willows.
I actually really like this myth. I think it's a pretty cool one, and it really shows the difference between mortals and gods. Phaeton, though he is the son of a god, is still a mortal and as such is not powerful enough to control as wild a thing as the sun, while Apollo manages to do it everyday.
The moral of this story is: Do not be arrogant, and do not bite off more than you can chew.
Latona & the Rustics
थे हवे अ वे तो राइट इन हिंदु!!! हाउ अवेसोमे इस ठाट???
Translation: They have a way to write in Hindu!!! How awesome is that???
Anyway, the latest myth is not very long. I think it might have something to do with how Io was chased around by Juno, because they mention "she whom royal Juno in her jealousy drove from land to land, denying her any spot whereon to rear her twins," which sounds a great deal like Io, except the name is now Latona.
One day, Latona sees a pond full of fresh water and is delighted, since she's very thirsty. Unfortunately, a bunch of rednecks are hanging around it and refuse to let her drink. In fact, to make sure she doesn't steal a single drop, they stir up the bottom so that the mud makes the water undrinkable, all the while laughing and jeering at her.
Io is furious, she calls out to heaven and tells it to make the men stay in the water forever. The gods listen, and turn the rustics into frogs.
This is very useful knowledge, since now whenever anyone makes a dim-witted joke about me being a frog since I'm French, I can tell them that they're idiots, and that everyone knows perfectly well that the Greeks are the frogs.
I just realized that Hindu thing probably doesn't work. In each language the words are set differently, and they didn't do anything about that when I typed them in. Still, it's pretty cool. Why Hindu, though? That's such a random language.
Translation: They have a way to write in Hindu!!! How awesome is that???
Anyway, the latest myth is not very long. I think it might have something to do with how Io was chased around by Juno, because they mention "she whom royal Juno in her jealousy drove from land to land, denying her any spot whereon to rear her twins," which sounds a great deal like Io, except the name is now Latona.
One day, Latona sees a pond full of fresh water and is delighted, since she's very thirsty. Unfortunately, a bunch of rednecks are hanging around it and refuse to let her drink. In fact, to make sure she doesn't steal a single drop, they stir up the bottom so that the mud makes the water undrinkable, all the while laughing and jeering at her.
Io is furious, she calls out to heaven and tells it to make the men stay in the water forever. The gods listen, and turn the rustics into frogs.
This is very useful knowledge, since now whenever anyone makes a dim-witted joke about me being a frog since I'm French, I can tell them that they're idiots, and that everyone knows perfectly well that the Greeks are the frogs.
I just realized that Hindu thing probably doesn't work. In each language the words are set differently, and they didn't do anything about that when I typed them in. Still, it's pretty cool. Why Hindu, though? That's such a random language.
Diana & Actaeon
This is a rather simple myth. Basically, Juno was taking a bath and Actaeon saw him during his hunt. She turned him onto a stag and he was eaten by his own dogs. The End.
Something is confusing here, though. Juno is Diana, and Juno, in the two myths I just read, was married. Yet here it says that she's a virgin goddess. How is that possible? You can't be a virgin if you're married. The whole point of being married is to be able to have kids without people whispering behind your back, and I've known since second grad that you can't have kids if you're a virgin. So what's going on?
Something is confusing here, though. Juno is Diana, and Juno, in the two myths I just read, was married. Yet here it says that she's a virgin goddess. How is that possible? You can't be a virgin if you're married. The whole point of being married is to be able to have kids without people whispering behind your back, and I've known since second grad that you can't have kids if you're a virgin. So what's going on?
Callisto
Callisto was another maiden who made Juno jealous. To take away her beauty, she decided to turn her into a bear.
So Callisto was a bear, unable to call for help, and all by herself in the forest. One day she came upon a young man who was hunting. He was about to kill her, but a god intervened and made them both stars; known today as the Little Bear and the Great Bear.
Yet Juno was angry that her attempt to destroy Callisto had gone so badly, and she asked the powers of the ocean not to allow the two bears to sink in the ocean with the other stars, which is why those two constellations wander around heaven but never sink down to the sea with the other ones.
I read another myth on why the Great and Small Bears were formed, from the Native Americans. I liked that one better, because it had more details and more adventure.
So Callisto was a bear, unable to call for help, and all by herself in the forest. One day she came upon a young man who was hunting. He was about to kill her, but a god intervened and made them both stars; known today as the Little Bear and the Great Bear.
Yet Juno was angry that her attempt to destroy Callisto had gone so badly, and she asked the powers of the ocean not to allow the two bears to sink in the ocean with the other stars, which is why those two constellations wander around heaven but never sink down to the sea with the other ones.
I read another myth on why the Great and Small Bears were formed, from the Native Americans. I liked that one better, because it had more details and more adventure.
Juno & Io
Juno' husband was cheating on her with a beautiful maiden called Io.
One day Juno caught him with a beautiful heifer, which she suspected was the mistress in disguise. She asked him if he would be so kind as to give it to her, and since he could think of no reasonable excuse not to, he agreed.
Juno then called Argus, a beast with hundreds of eyes which he only closed a few at a time, to watch over her.
So things went like that for a long time, and Io got kinda sick of being a heifer, so Juno;s husband to pity on her and got Hermes to kill Argus, allowing her to go home.
Juno was still mad however, and chased her all over the world before giving up and letting her go home, though the sea Io crossed during the chase became known as the Ionian sea.
I really don't understand why all the gods cheat on each other. Zeus has at least fifty bastard sons, and only one with Hera. He doesn't even bother to hide it! Why doesn't she just divorce him (or the godly/Ancient Greek of that).
One day Juno caught him with a beautiful heifer, which she suspected was the mistress in disguise. She asked him if he would be so kind as to give it to her, and since he could think of no reasonable excuse not to, he agreed.
Juno then called Argus, a beast with hundreds of eyes which he only closed a few at a time, to watch over her.
So things went like that for a long time, and Io got kinda sick of being a heifer, so Juno;s husband to pity on her and got Hermes to kill Argus, allowing her to go home.
Juno was still mad however, and chased her all over the world before giving up and letting her go home, though the sea Io crossed during the chase became known as the Ionian sea.
I really don't understand why all the gods cheat on each other. Zeus has at least fifty bastard sons, and only one with Hera. He doesn't even bother to hide it! Why doesn't she just divorce him (or the godly/Ancient Greek of that).
lunes, 10 de septiembre de 2007
Cephalus & Procris
In this myth, Aurora falls in love with a beautiful youth called Cephalus, but he's in love with his wife Procris. So she allows him to go home, warning him that one day he would be sorry he ever saw her again.
Now it just so happened that Cephalus was fond of hunting, and there was a particularly cunning fox hanging around his woods. He spent a long time chasing it, and when he was hot he talked to the breeze, telling him to comfort him, to cool his heat, etc.
Someone heard Cephalus thus, and believed he was cheating on his wife. That person told her, and she was outraged, yet decided to suspend her judgment until she had proof.
So she followed him while he went hunting, and hearing him talking to the breeze in what must have been dirty talk three thousand years ago, she cried out.
Cephalus thought she was a fox, and speared her, only to discover his wife. He explained to her what had happened, but it was too late.
She died. Another tragic love story. I really feel that if lovers actually stopped assuming things, and actually slowed down and thought before killing themselves, the suicide/murder rates in Ancient Greece would go way down
Now it just so happened that Cephalus was fond of hunting, and there was a particularly cunning fox hanging around his woods. He spent a long time chasing it, and when he was hot he talked to the breeze, telling him to comfort him, to cool his heat, etc.
Someone heard Cephalus thus, and believed he was cheating on his wife. That person told her, and she was outraged, yet decided to suspend her judgment until she had proof.
So she followed him while he went hunting, and hearing him talking to the breeze in what must have been dirty talk three thousand years ago, she cried out.
Cephalus thought she was a fox, and speared her, only to discover his wife. He explained to her what had happened, but it was too late.
She died. Another tragic love story. I really feel that if lovers actually stopped assuming things, and actually slowed down and thought before killing themselves, the suicide/murder rates in Ancient Greece would go way down
Pyramus & Thisbe
I mostly read this myth because it was my favorite part in the play "A Midsummer Night's Dream." I thought it was actually way better when it was funny, because now it just looked like a cheap imitation of "Romeo & Juliette," even though it's the other way around.
The plot is really simple, and really cliche too.
Basically: Boy and girl fall in love. Parents don't want them to marry. Boy and girl agree to elope. Misunderstanding happens. Boy thinks girl is dead. Boy kills himself. Girl sees that boy is dead. Girl kills herself. Families then become best friends. The end.
I really don't understand why authors like to kill off true lovers in stories. Even the worst writer in the world ought to be able to write "and they lived happily ever after" at the end of a story. What's the point of explaining a long and complicated romance, only to end it randomly and pointlessly?
Speaking of writers, who wrote all those Greek myths? And did they actually believe they were true, that a god had told them, did they think "that must have been what happened," or did their grandson ask them why mulberries were purple and they felt they had to answer? The same goes for the bible.
The plot is really simple, and really cliche too.
Basically: Boy and girl fall in love. Parents don't want them to marry. Boy and girl agree to elope. Misunderstanding happens. Boy thinks girl is dead. Boy kills himself. Girl sees that boy is dead. Girl kills herself. Families then become best friends. The end.
I really don't understand why authors like to kill off true lovers in stories. Even the worst writer in the world ought to be able to write "and they lived happily ever after" at the end of a story. What's the point of explaining a long and complicated romance, only to end it randomly and pointlessly?
Speaking of writers, who wrote all those Greek myths? And did they actually believe they were true, that a god had told them, did they think "that must have been what happened," or did their grandson ask them why mulberries were purple and they felt they had to answer? The same goes for the bible.
Apollo & Daphne
In this myth, Apollo makes fun of Cupid, and Cupid get mad. To revenge himself, he strikes Apollo with passionate love for a nymph, whom he strikes with an abhorrence of love of any kind.
So Apollo is mooning about the nymph, who hates love and spends her days hunting. One day, however, Apollo gets sick of her resisting him and chases her around for a long time (not to sound mean or anything, but that sounds more like something a third-grader would do then a fully grown adult god), and she gets sick of it. She pleads to her father, the river god, to help her, and he turns her into a tree (what a great way to solve the problem).
Apollo is devastated, but since he's such a macho man he still wants to possess her. Therefore, he lovingly cuts off parts of her body to wear on his head.
I sort of liked the trick Cupid played on Apollo. It's a pretty smart way to get revenge, if you think about it. Make on guy passionately in love with someone who wants nothing to do with him. Cupid's a smart little guy.
So Apollo is mooning about the nymph, who hates love and spends her days hunting. One day, however, Apollo gets sick of her resisting him and chases her around for a long time (not to sound mean or anything, but that sounds more like something a third-grader would do then a fully grown adult god), and she gets sick of it. She pleads to her father, the river god, to help her, and he turns her into a tree (what a great way to solve the problem).
Apollo is devastated, but since he's such a macho man he still wants to possess her. Therefore, he lovingly cuts off parts of her body to wear on his head.
I sort of liked the trick Cupid played on Apollo. It's a pretty smart way to get revenge, if you think about it. Make on guy passionately in love with someone who wants nothing to do with him. Cupid's a smart little guy.
Bausic & Philemon
What bausically happened in this myth was that Jupiter and one of his many sons decided to go wandering around, pretending to be homeless. They arrive at a village in the middle of nowhere, and knock on everybody's door, seeking help. However, it's the middle of the night, the villagers are asleep, and they have absolutely no desire to open their home to absolute strangers who could be murderers or rapers, and no one answers.
Eventually they get to the house of Bausic and Philemon, an old couple that feeds and entertain the gods (although they don't know what they are). However, their suspicion is roused when they notice that their wine bottle keeps filling up of it's own accord. Realizing who they're entertaining, they fall to their knees and beg for the gods' forgiveness for not treating them better.
However, Jupiter and son thank them for their hospitality, for they were the only ones to invite them in their house, and drown the rest of the village to punish them.
I would like to comment on that. Those villagers were probably their family, friends, and the only people they'd known their whole lives. Yet, apart from being "horrified," for a second, they show absolutely no outrage, anger, etc. that their only friends were murdered just like that. They are simply pleased that Jupiter turns their house into a temple and make them priests, without a hint of bitterness for the meaningless massacre of at least forty people.
Eventually they get to the house of Bausic and Philemon, an old couple that feeds and entertain the gods (although they don't know what they are). However, their suspicion is roused when they notice that their wine bottle keeps filling up of it's own accord. Realizing who they're entertaining, they fall to their knees and beg for the gods' forgiveness for not treating them better.
However, Jupiter and son thank them for their hospitality, for they were the only ones to invite them in their house, and drown the rest of the village to punish them.
I would like to comment on that. Those villagers were probably their family, friends, and the only people they'd known their whole lives. Yet, apart from being "horrified," for a second, they show absolutely no outrage, anger, etc. that their only friends were murdered just like that. They are simply pleased that Jupiter turns their house into a temple and make them priests, without a hint of bitterness for the meaningless massacre of at least forty people.
Why is it that gods can get away with things like that? First of all, why were those Greek and Roman gods even worshiped? When someone worships someone else, it means that that person has something that the worshiper admires, think is extremely good. Little Jimmy doesn't love his uncle Billy because he's an absolute scoundrel that should burn in hell, but because he's handsome and kind and funny. The Greek/Roman gods and goddesses had absolutely no value for human life, had probably never heard of "self control," had to have everything go their way, stole, cheated, were unfaithful husbands, and turned people they didn't like into trees, yet the Greeks still thought they were an admirable set of people that deserved to be praised day and night. They must have had some pretty messed up morals (although, in their defense, if the result of not treating them with proper respect was to be turned into a spider, I would be only too willing to kneel before their statues). The Christians, for example, believe in a God that is all-knowing, extremely kind, forgiving, and gentle. If you slapped Jesus, he would offer you his other cheek. If you slapped Zeus, he would turn you into a hot dog and eat you.
Just something that really annoys me about Greek mythology.
Just something that really annoys me about Greek mythology.
miércoles, 5 de septiembre de 2007
Story
I don't really know what to think about the story. I really liked it, but I can't figure it out (which bothers me because I'm usually very good at figuring stuff). I guess that maybe I'm taking it too seriously, and it is not a serious metaphor about life but just an entertaining story someone thought up on a rainy afternoon.
Yet there were some part that I thought were actually pretty deep (or well thought at least).
One of them was the part where he was talking about how they were betting on numbers before the concept of numbers even existed. But weren't numbers always there? As long as there was something there were numbers (and though I have no idea what those two things were, they were something since they could think). and how could they think of numbers in the first place if the concept of numbers didn't exist?
I also like the way Qwfw predicts things that will happen before there isn't the slightest evidence that it's possible, such as that Mesopotamian part. I guess that if you were really brilliant and had trillions of years to spare, then you could look at something, decide what is the most likely thing to happen, then based on that (and all the circumstances surrounding it) you can figure out, once again, what will probably happen, then based on that....... So basically if you knew that it was in Jimmy's character to run across the street without looking both ways because of his education, and based on what the weather that will likely be on Saturday, and the fact that it's very probable that Jimmy's friend Tom will invite him to dinner because you could have guessed that from what was likely to happen to Tom that week, and that John and his girlfriend were completely incompatible and that they would break up at a party on a certain day (due to circumstances you could have guessed), and John would go out and gt drunk, then since it was in since his character he would drive over to hid girlfriend's house to yell at her, therefore would be drunk driving on the very same street Billy would be running across to see Tom and the two would collide and Billy would die. Then, since it was in Billy's mother's character to fall into a depression, she would, and his dad would kill himself because of both of them, causing his mom to be hated and shunned, so that she would kille herself too...... This could go on forever, and I'm not sure why I wasted so much time writing it. Anyway, if you could do that for every single person in the world and determine the effect each thing would have on the society, then you could predict what would happen in a millennium. You would need to be genius to do that, of course, and also have a REALLY long life, but it's possible (although I'm sorry, but if you manage to do that that means you REALLY times a thousand need to get a life). Also, it would be entirely likely that along the way you would make a mistake that would mess up your prediction up, which is probably why Qwfw never won those bets at the end. So that was probably my favorite aspect of the story.
I didn't like Dean much. He seemed very irritating, and I don't see why Qwfw chose to be his friend. Although I guess that if you live all lone in the universe with only a person like him for company, you wouldn't be too picky.
Anyway, that was basically my opinion of that short story. Like I said, I liked it, although I would be lying if I said I spent a long time trying to understand all the scientific nonsense they talked about.
Yet there were some part that I thought were actually pretty deep (or well thought at least).
One of them was the part where he was talking about how they were betting on numbers before the concept of numbers even existed. But weren't numbers always there? As long as there was something there were numbers (and though I have no idea what those two things were, they were something since they could think). and how could they think of numbers in the first place if the concept of numbers didn't exist?
I also like the way Qwfw predicts things that will happen before there isn't the slightest evidence that it's possible, such as that Mesopotamian part. I guess that if you were really brilliant and had trillions of years to spare, then you could look at something, decide what is the most likely thing to happen, then based on that (and all the circumstances surrounding it) you can figure out, once again, what will probably happen, then based on that....... So basically if you knew that it was in Jimmy's character to run across the street without looking both ways because of his education, and based on what the weather that will likely be on Saturday, and the fact that it's very probable that Jimmy's friend Tom will invite him to dinner because you could have guessed that from what was likely to happen to Tom that week, and that John and his girlfriend were completely incompatible and that they would break up at a party on a certain day (due to circumstances you could have guessed), and John would go out and gt drunk, then since it was in since his character he would drive over to hid girlfriend's house to yell at her, therefore would be drunk driving on the very same street Billy would be running across to see Tom and the two would collide and Billy would die. Then, since it was in Billy's mother's character to fall into a depression, she would, and his dad would kill himself because of both of them, causing his mom to be hated and shunned, so that she would kille herself too...... This could go on forever, and I'm not sure why I wasted so much time writing it. Anyway, if you could do that for every single person in the world and determine the effect each thing would have on the society, then you could predict what would happen in a millennium. You would need to be genius to do that, of course, and also have a REALLY long life, but it's possible (although I'm sorry, but if you manage to do that that means you REALLY times a thousand need to get a life). Also, it would be entirely likely that along the way you would make a mistake that would mess up your prediction up, which is probably why Qwfw never won those bets at the end. So that was probably my favorite aspect of the story.
I didn't like Dean much. He seemed very irritating, and I don't see why Qwfw chose to be his friend. Although I guess that if you live all lone in the universe with only a person like him for company, you wouldn't be too picky.
Anyway, that was basically my opinion of that short story. Like I said, I liked it, although I would be lying if I said I spent a long time trying to understand all the scientific nonsense they talked about.
domingo, 2 de septiembre de 2007
Gilgamesh Summary
Once upon a time, there was a king called Gilgamesh. He was as strong as a wild ox, and all the citizens of his city feared him, for with him around "neither the father's son, nor the wife of the noble, neither the mother's daughter nor the wife of the noble were safe." And so, typically, they prayed to the Gods for someone who would match him.
One god, Aruru, heard the prayer and decided to listen. She created Enkidu, who lived in the wild. He would become the second most important person in the book. He was equal to everyone except Gilgamesh, whom he fought, and was wrestled to his knees. This passage was important because it would mean that for the rest of the book Gilgamesh would always be the most important of the two, and Enkidu would not mind obeying him because he had proved his superiority so there would be no control fights.
Gilgamesh heard about Huwawa, who guarded the Cedar Forest, and he and Enkidu set off to defeat him. It was a long journey, and when they finally got there they didn't even him, but the god Shamash did. Actually, that happens a lot in this story. Gilgamesh always has the help of either a god or Enkidu and never does anything by himself.
Then Ishtar, Goddess of Love & War (what a strange combination!) falls in love with him, but Gilgamesh refuses, saying that nothing good will come out of it. In a rage, she sends the Bull of Heaven after him, but he and Enkidu kill it.
A quote I like here, that is said when Ishtar offers herself to him and saying he can touch her anyway, is: "Why should I eat rotten food, having been taught to eat wholesome food?" (Pg. 31) I think this still applies to modern culture in many ways, the most obvious one is that we all eat junk food and rot our teeth by eating things that taste good but are really unhealthy. That was probably what Ishtar was; she tasted good and probably felt good, but she would have ended up being more trouble than she's worth if Gilgamesh had ended up with her.
Then all the gods have a council to punish the two of Enkidu and Gilgamesh, and it is decided that Enkidu will be killed.
Enkidu keeps having horrible nightmares about death, and I thought that was interesting too. Why do the olden cultures portray Death as a horrible thing, to be avoided at all costs, because if they die they will end up being weak and maltreated, while the Catholic church portrays it as your reward, something to be looked forward to your whole life? It's curious, is it because the catholic God is kind and compassionate, perfect, while the pagan gods are always flawed and taken to human passion and greed?
Anyway, Enkidu dies and Gilgamesh is heartbroken, yet also scared of death now since he's starting to feel his age. He goes on a wild journey, where he traces the path that the sun passes during the night (making it quite clear that whoever wrote this book was not really scientific), in search of the one man he believes can teach him the secret to immortality.
When he finds him, however, the man says something really fascinating: "[In death] the simple man and the ruler resemble each other.The face of the one will darken like that of the other." (Pg. 64) I thought this one was really interesting because it shows that even thousands of years ago, some people realized the peasants and emperors were similar in that they were both human, and therefore were sick and needed to eat and died one as much as the other. The books then goes on to show that the only way for someone to be immortal was to be a god, and only a human of considerable worth to manage that feat.
Gilgamesh doesn't manage it, but he is does get the plant called How-The-Old-Man-Became-A-Young-Man-Again, which is a very obvious name, in my opinion. But a snake steals it, and so he Gilgamesh doesn't end up being immortal. Too bad, so sad.
After that, Gilgamesh drops his Drumstick in the Netherworld (I never got that part. How on earth do you manage to drop a drumstick in the Netherworld????), and Enkidu volunteers to go get it. He is caught , however, and another of my favorite quote is said: "Namtar the demon did not seize and hold him. The fever demon Ashak did not seize him. Nergal's pitiless viceroy did not hold him. It was the Cry of the Dead that seized and held him. He did not fall in battle. It was the Cry." (Pg. 88) I liked it because it made me think about the fact that no one died just because. For someone to die, they have to have a problem, such as their heart not working, eating something that doesn't agree with them, being run over a car. You don't even die because you're old, but because your body stops working well enough to keep you alive. I found it really cool that someone died because Death seized it, with absolutely no reason. Your life just ended like that (it also made me think of Harry Potter and the Avada Kedavra curse, where no doctors can ever figure out what happened because nothing happened. Your life just ended like that).
Anyway, Enkidu manages to convince a god to open up the doors to the Underworld, and Enkidu came. He talked about Death for awhile, and he said that the more sons a man has the better he is treated. I wonder if he meant that because men with lots of boys are "better," and therefore gods like them better, or if he meant that if a man has lots of boys they can serve them better and make more sure they're comfortable. And how does that work with the son's sons and father? And does it apply to girls?
After that the book ended.
I don't understand why this tale is supposedly about the creation of existence. Things already existed before Gilgamesh, he didn't make any of it.
Something that I find interesting is that Gilgamesh never did anything just because he wanted to, but always to "secure [his] fame to all [his] sons." I wonder if by that he meant that he wanted, years from then, for people to remember his name and fear him, or if he just wanted his sons to be able to brag that they were descendants of Gilgamesh and as such ought to be treated with respect. I think that he wants a bit of both, actually.
So this is basically what happened in the epic of "Gilgamesh." I, personally, didn't like it that much because the writing was different then what I'm used to and it annoyed me how the verses were repeated over and over again. I probably would've liked the story if it had been written differently, even though I realize that was how things were written back then (it suddenly occured to me that that must also have been how they spoke. That must've been funny!!!!), but it jut spoiled the whole book for me.
One god, Aruru, heard the prayer and decided to listen. She created Enkidu, who lived in the wild. He would become the second most important person in the book. He was equal to everyone except Gilgamesh, whom he fought, and was wrestled to his knees. This passage was important because it would mean that for the rest of the book Gilgamesh would always be the most important of the two, and Enkidu would not mind obeying him because he had proved his superiority so there would be no control fights.
Gilgamesh heard about Huwawa, who guarded the Cedar Forest, and he and Enkidu set off to defeat him. It was a long journey, and when they finally got there they didn't even him, but the god Shamash did. Actually, that happens a lot in this story. Gilgamesh always has the help of either a god or Enkidu and never does anything by himself.
Then Ishtar, Goddess of Love & War (what a strange combination!) falls in love with him, but Gilgamesh refuses, saying that nothing good will come out of it. In a rage, she sends the Bull of Heaven after him, but he and Enkidu kill it.
A quote I like here, that is said when Ishtar offers herself to him and saying he can touch her anyway, is: "Why should I eat rotten food, having been taught to eat wholesome food?" (Pg. 31) I think this still applies to modern culture in many ways, the most obvious one is that we all eat junk food and rot our teeth by eating things that taste good but are really unhealthy. That was probably what Ishtar was; she tasted good and probably felt good, but she would have ended up being more trouble than she's worth if Gilgamesh had ended up with her.
Then all the gods have a council to punish the two of Enkidu and Gilgamesh, and it is decided that Enkidu will be killed.
Enkidu keeps having horrible nightmares about death, and I thought that was interesting too. Why do the olden cultures portray Death as a horrible thing, to be avoided at all costs, because if they die they will end up being weak and maltreated, while the Catholic church portrays it as your reward, something to be looked forward to your whole life? It's curious, is it because the catholic God is kind and compassionate, perfect, while the pagan gods are always flawed and taken to human passion and greed?
Anyway, Enkidu dies and Gilgamesh is heartbroken, yet also scared of death now since he's starting to feel his age. He goes on a wild journey, where he traces the path that the sun passes during the night (making it quite clear that whoever wrote this book was not really scientific), in search of the one man he believes can teach him the secret to immortality.
When he finds him, however, the man says something really fascinating: "[In death] the simple man and the ruler resemble each other.The face of the one will darken like that of the other." (Pg. 64) I thought this one was really interesting because it shows that even thousands of years ago, some people realized the peasants and emperors were similar in that they were both human, and therefore were sick and needed to eat and died one as much as the other. The books then goes on to show that the only way for someone to be immortal was to be a god, and only a human of considerable worth to manage that feat.
Gilgamesh doesn't manage it, but he is does get the plant called How-The-Old-Man-Became-A-Young-Man-Again, which is a very obvious name, in my opinion. But a snake steals it, and so he Gilgamesh doesn't end up being immortal. Too bad, so sad.
After that, Gilgamesh drops his Drumstick in the Netherworld (I never got that part. How on earth do you manage to drop a drumstick in the Netherworld????), and Enkidu volunteers to go get it. He is caught , however, and another of my favorite quote is said: "Namtar the demon did not seize and hold him. The fever demon Ashak did not seize him. Nergal's pitiless viceroy did not hold him. It was the Cry of the Dead that seized and held him. He did not fall in battle. It was the Cry." (Pg. 88) I liked it because it made me think about the fact that no one died just because. For someone to die, they have to have a problem, such as their heart not working, eating something that doesn't agree with them, being run over a car. You don't even die because you're old, but because your body stops working well enough to keep you alive. I found it really cool that someone died because Death seized it, with absolutely no reason. Your life just ended like that (it also made me think of Harry Potter and the Avada Kedavra curse, where no doctors can ever figure out what happened because nothing happened. Your life just ended like that).
Anyway, Enkidu manages to convince a god to open up the doors to the Underworld, and Enkidu came. He talked about Death for awhile, and he said that the more sons a man has the better he is treated. I wonder if he meant that because men with lots of boys are "better," and therefore gods like them better, or if he meant that if a man has lots of boys they can serve them better and make more sure they're comfortable. And how does that work with the son's sons and father? And does it apply to girls?
After that the book ended.
I don't understand why this tale is supposedly about the creation of existence. Things already existed before Gilgamesh, he didn't make any of it.
Something that I find interesting is that Gilgamesh never did anything just because he wanted to, but always to "secure [his] fame to all [his] sons." I wonder if by that he meant that he wanted, years from then, for people to remember his name and fear him, or if he just wanted his sons to be able to brag that they were descendants of Gilgamesh and as such ought to be treated with respect. I think that he wants a bit of both, actually.
So this is basically what happened in the epic of "Gilgamesh." I, personally, didn't like it that much because the writing was different then what I'm used to and it annoyed me how the verses were repeated over and over again. I probably would've liked the story if it had been written differently, even though I realize that was how things were written back then (it suddenly occured to me that that must also have been how they spoke. That must've been funny!!!!), but it jut spoiled the whole book for me.
Tablet XII
In this chapter, Gilgamesh drops his drumstick in the Nether World, and asks for someone to bring it back (a more simple solution would have been to buy another one, but whatever he wants). Enkidu hears his cry and says he'll do it, and Gilgamesh warns him that when he goes he should wear old clothes or people will know he's a stranger, he should not perfume himself or people will swarm around him, he should not carry a staff or a bow or the spirits would be startled, he should not wear shoes or else his footsteps will echo, and he should not kiss the wife and son dearest to him, nor should he strike the wife or son he hates (nice!), or he will be seized and held by the cry of the dead.
Enkidu doesn't listen, and all the things listed above happen to him, much to Gilgamesh's grief (which I don't understand since Enkidu was dead already), and he asks help from all the gods. Only one listens to him, however, and that one manages to open up the bottom of the Netherworld so that Enkidu comes up as a vapor.
The two brothers try to hug each other, but that doesn't work out so well and so they sit here and talk about the Netherworld. Enkidu doesn't want to tell Gilgamesh about it, but through hard work and a lot of persuasion the king convinces him to do so.
Enkidu says that vermin eat his body (a lovely mental image), the more sons a person has the better that person is treated, the people whose mortal body is unburied wander around eternally, and those who leave the earth with no one to mourn for them eat the kind of a garbage a dog wouldn't eat (obviously whoever wrote this tale hadn't met my dog).
Enkidu doesn't listen, and all the things listed above happen to him, much to Gilgamesh's grief (which I don't understand since Enkidu was dead already), and he asks help from all the gods. Only one listens to him, however, and that one manages to open up the bottom of the Netherworld so that Enkidu comes up as a vapor.
The two brothers try to hug each other, but that doesn't work out so well and so they sit here and talk about the Netherworld. Enkidu doesn't want to tell Gilgamesh about it, but through hard work and a lot of persuasion the king convinces him to do so.
Enkidu says that vermin eat his body (a lovely mental image), the more sons a person has the better that person is treated, the people whose mortal body is unburied wander around eternally, and those who leave the earth with no one to mourn for them eat the kind of a garbage a dog wouldn't eat (obviously whoever wrote this tale hadn't met my dog).
La Fin
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)