"Achilles or Hector" (poem) >>> Admiration or Elevation (100 Days of Poetry Challenge - Day #2)
So, which would you choose? Achilles or Hector?
In a previous post, Would this Make a Good Nike Ad?, I discussed, amongst other things, Other-Judging Emotions. Of the positives, there is Gratitude, Admiration and Elevation.
Leaving aside Gratitude, I explained that Admiration was the "Witnessing of Human Excellence" and that Elevation was the "Witnessing of Moral Exemplar."
Achilles displayed Human Excellence ... he was the best soldier on the battlefield. Hector displayed both Human Excellence (the second best soldier on the battlefield) and Moral Exemplar. Nevertheless, he lost.
Would you, like the Greeks, and in seeming defiance of what Homer was trying to warn them of, choose victory at all costs. Achilles won. Or, like the Romans, would you sacrifice a bit of victory to balance it with being a Good Man?
This is not an ancient conundrum, lost in the annals of history. It is as valid today as it was then. Yes, we all want to win, but at what cost? It would be nice if we could have both all the time, but life rarely gives us what we want. In the end, we all decide.
So ... decide.
Let me know what you think in the Comments section below.
Hector's Funeral Pyre
(both images are in the public domain)
Neither of them overly appeal to me, but Hector would no doubt edge Achilles out if they were the two last men on Earth. If I must choose a suitor from the ancient Greek world perhaps I would go with one who actually lived ... maybe Pericles. He had respect for intelligent women and fine intellect himself ... a general but also a lover of the arts and intellectual pursuits.
@prydefoltz,
Pryde, congratulations ... you've managed to disparage Homer's Illiad, perhaps the most influential book in the history of Western literature, not to mention poetry.
By all accounts, Hector was an excellent husband and father and was beloved by his people. And your problem would be ...
You seem to have a pretty big problem with Alpha Males. If a man isn't sitting around sipping tea and ruminating about metaphysics, he's a loser. Achilles, Hector, Alexander the Great ... and Aristotle. I'm glad to see you're willing to cut Pericles a bit of slack, although how you know he had respect for intelligent women or, for that matter, that the others did not, is beyond me.
Pryde, feminism creates a pretty narrow, and highly distorted, lens through which to view history.
Oh dear ...
Intelligence and compassion is a big part of what I look for in the people I like to spend time with. I like my freedom too much to want to be dominated or ruled ... if this is what you allude to by alpha males. Who wants to be under the thumb of another? Do you? This kind of person has very little to offer me but asks a great deal in return. I see no attraction in the interaction. That is my preference. It is not the preference of all. Obviously. You asked for my preference and then struck my hand for giving it and offering a better scenario. LOL.
Do not take this personally ... you are not Hector, Achilles or Pericles. Are you an alpha male? Then you have my condolences. Anachronisms never fair well with change. Okay I am being naughty ... but you have stepped out of the rules of polite discourse, my friend, and so I respond in kind. Consider your face slapped with my kid glove.
Do you know who Aspasia was? This was what I base my estimation of Pericles wrt respecting intelligent women. He was also more of a populist, I like that too. Hector and Achilles were not real people, and from all account Alexander loved his mother. Homer was a fabulous writer and I implied nothing to the contrary.
They say the real estimate of a person is how they behave when they get a taste of power ... do they guard that power and seek to increase it at the expense of others or do they seek to empower others? You can label me a feminist, if you like, 'narrow-minded and in possession of a distorted view of things'. But I highly suggest that you make sure you are not simply projecting preconceptions upon another with very little knowledge of who the other is. Make sure you are not just simply serving your own bias and creating an enemy where there is only one trying to be your friend. Hmm?
Yes, my bias leans towards things like democracy, diplomacy, equality and equity, rationality over violence, empowerment for as many people as possible. Guilty. To my knowledge these are Enlightenment ideals and not 'anti-male', although they do coincide with feminist ideals. True enough. Don't buy the media hype that being a feminist means disliking men. It doesn't. It means liking choice and freedom. Nor does disagreeing with you make one narrow-minded and distorted in perception. That said, I don't think I actually disagreed. It just means that one sees things from a different view, has different learning and life experience influencing that view, holds different values dear.
Don't worry ... time will most certainly prove us both deluded.
Now, excuse while I go burn my bra and worship my bust of Betty Friedan.
A good day to you. sir:):):)
LOL
Wink wink:)
LOL:)
ALLLL THE PRAISE HANDS GO TO YOU. PLEASE JOIN US
no one should have to burn their bra alone ;)
Now ... that was fun:)
First off ... I chose Hector. I CHOSE HECTOR. Please excuse my strident tone, but out of the two make-believe characters you offered, I chose Hector and then offered a better choice of someone who actually lived.
Second off ... I did not say any other Ancient Greek Man, fictional or dead, did not respect women. In this conversation. I said Pericles DID. You chose to project the rest based on a previous conversation where I pointed to a couple of philosophers that DID NOT hold women's intellect in high regard ... but mostly you joust with windmills. I do not wish to 'throw out babies'.
Accomplishments are great and ideas are great and some of them remain great, However, history is written by the victors and is highly selective and sometimes downright false. It is important to apply the practices of social history to these oh-so glorious tales ... that might as well be the Iliad ... to dig a little deeper and estimate the true human costs. That does not make me narrow-minded; it makes me capable of broader, less myth-based perception. You see me as hippy-dippy ... you might actually be surprised there ... I see you as buying into fairy-tales ... Grimm ones, indeed.
To your boast of being able to defeat children ... lol. The Grinch, as portrayed by Jim Carrey, said it best. "No child can defeat me!" I stand in awe of you, sir. I study karate with a mixed group ... all ages and gender ... indeed there are a few children that can defeat me, some of them girls. But I live in hope. LOL.
To my alphaness, or lack thereof ... I do not run with a wolf pack and so any hormonal advantage I might have in the wild would only end me up incarcerated in civilization. I am big fan of flushing toilets and refrigerator food and no fan of imprisonment, so I will nurture the traits that nurture civilization and not choose alpha anything. When I get cranky, I will take a nap and forgo storming the Red Keep, even if I could convince the dragons to join me.
I like personal empowerment and I do not think anyone who also likes it should be denied it and used as a pawn in someone else's delusions of grandeur. I Like those that empower others as they empower themselves. I am far more than my biology or gender. They are part of the mix, but my mind is far more powerful. I pity anyone who is a slave to biology. I don't care how much testosterone they can produce. I care how they have nurtured their minds and what ideals they hold dear. I admire someone who can keep those biological drives in check. They call this awareness, transcendence, and enlightenment. You can also call it metaphysical, if you like, but it is not metaphysical in the way you originally implied.
Truth time ... you cannot have rationality without having first mastered yourself. You can write syllogism to your heart's content. But that does not make you a rational person ... only practiced in logic. So in a way you equivocate ... are you going to continue to cry naturalism or commit to rationalism? You can't practice both at the same time. It's one or the other. Metaphysics however ... excluding myth-based practices ... compliments rationality rather nicely.
So you asked my preference and now I ask yours ...
rationalism or 'biological' naturalism, which do you prefer?
Nice words
@nationall,
Thank you.
Victor or Protector. I love the contrast you created between the two of them. Bringing out their best qualities and their worst. The motivation behind the fight.
It doesn't matter who won, what matters is the reason they fought. One's ideals where selfish and led nowhere and the others was selfless and an empire was built on it.
It barely matters what we achieve save the reason for which we achieve. Great piece. Love it
@skodie,
Thanks mate. It's an epic tale for a reason. Makes for good story-telling.