Hell Ain't A Bad Place To Be

"Each of us bears his own Hell."

-Virgil

Virgil's description of Hell really surprised me. Then again, the concept of Heaven and Hell is a subject that has always captivated, both for religious and literary reasons. Christianity has always defined the two possible afterlife destinations as completely and totally opposite, as different as day and night. Good go Heaven, baddies go to Hell, go to church on Sunday and stay out of the whorehouse and you'll be alright. This is the classic mantra of organized religion, a "carrot and stick" means of enforcing morality that still holds sway to this day (thanks in no small part to Dante's Inferno). For those that do not necessarily believe in afterlife, you have the karmic cycle, the righteousness of dharma, and the uber-spiritual effort to escape reincarnation and become godlike.

What's funny about the Roman perception of the afterlife is that, before these religions even existed or held worldwide prominance, they sort of mixed these all together to create something seemingly inspired by all ideals of spirituality, something Rome would become famous for doing. Their afterlife consists of just one zone rather than two, but is divided in to three areas. After crossing the river you enter the city of Dis, comparable to Purgatory or Limbo in that those who are neither righteous or wicked simply wander around seeking answers. It's not great or terrible, it's just kinda lukewarm (no wonder Aeneas went around it).

To the left (sinister) is Tartarus, the Roman equivalent of Hell, containing appropriate justice for the wicked and is just as frightening as you can imagine. Here are the god-defiers, greedy, violent, and the liars. To the right (dexter) are the Elysian Fields, and this is where things get tricky. Yes, it's the Roman equivalent of Heaven, but what surprised me is that for some there is the option of reincarnation, where the soul is purified of the stench of the body still left on the soul so it can be re-released into the world. You see, reflections of Hinduism. In this zone are the priests, artists, warriors, and yes, poets (suck on that Plato)! Notice that those who were totally submissive to the gods are in paradise, similar to the core value of Islam.

I guess when it comes to the Romans who it is they're worshipping isn't as important as actually believeing there's more to life than just this. It makes sense, then, that other religions are echoed in their idea of the afterlife, as it is not the theology that's important to the Romans but the spirituality. Well, there you go, please feel free to comment with questions or criticism. BTW, I commented on Treya's post, Wisdom wins.

Have a nice afterlife! 8D

Jumping Back

So, I have been quite forgetful in regard to my blogs. For this I apologize. Since I'm so late and have been sick I'm gonna jump back to Aristotle. Something that really jumped out at me was his explanation that it is most excellent to pursue a median of actions and emotions. It is unhealthy to have either a deficiency or an excess of any given emotion or action. He briefly mentioned something that I had to go into deeper thought about. He said that this median is not the same for everyone. My entire life I have felt like my sister and I have been forced into a box by the public school system. I was never allowed to skip ahead and she, because of the "no child left behind" policy, was pushed through without having learned the material. Expecting everyone to have the same median does no one any good. In order to really help children learn, things have to get personal. Aristotle states that certain goals should be made based on each person's abilities. That is how education should be carried out.

Wisdom wins

I have to say the part about the Trojan Horse was the most aggravating part of the book so far. It was one of those parts where you want to scream at the characters in the book because they are causing their own death. They had so many chances to discover the truth about the horse, but something always stopped them. When they were bringing it up from the beach Capys and a few others mentioned the actual chance of there being warriors hiding inside of the hollowed belly, yet they don’t convince the mass of Trojans to check. Also the Priest Laocoon and the Prophetess Cassandra warn against the horse, but it seems other forces are at work. Athena finally gets her revenge on Troy by helping the trick of the Greeks succeed. The Trojans might not have brought the Trojan Horse in without the sign of the snakes devouring Laocoon and his children. As Aeneas finds out later it really was by the choice of the gods that Troy fell. Athena and Hera’s wicked plan finally played out, they sacked the city of Troy.

ps. I commented on Anna's blog

Epic Beginnings

I find it interesting that almost every epic beginns with the same kind of circumstances. Normally there is very strong emotions involved, a god hs been upset, there is war afoot, the poet lets the story be told by a Muse, and there is a life-changing journey that is about to take place by the protagonist. In the Aeneid, Juno is ticked off straight from the beginning, and she is angry at Aneas because he is a Trojan. There is the negative emotion. Like in the Illiad, Achilleus gets ticked off immediately because Agammemnon takes his wife from him. Juno is the angry god in the Aeneid, and in the Illiad Apollo is prayed to, and then he gets angry at the Achaians at the request of the temple priest who had his daughter stolen from him. Troy is at war in both the Aenied and the Illiad. The Greeks are attacking it in the Aeneid, and the Achaians attack it eventually in the Illiad. So fighting is a key element in both of those epics. Homer set the standard for all epics to be written, so it makes sense that all of the epics that follow his Illiad and Odyssey are similar to his works in some way. His epic was primary though, the original epis, whereas all the others that follow tend to be secondary epics. Once a standars is set, people tend to follow it.

I commented on Anna's blog.

Revenge

Juno and her unquenchable thirst revenge tend to irritate me. First, she has a problem with Troy because Paris didn't think she was more divinely beautiful than Venus. Second, she has a problem with Aeneas because he is fated to destroy her favorite city. Tear, tear, tear...

The antics of revenge are selfish and juvenile. Juno acts like a five year old--although, I coach gymnastics for five year olds who are better behaved. Regardless, I think you see the point. In my mind, I really want to send Juno to a timeout in the corner.

What is it inside of us that entices us to revenge? Why is "an eye for an eye" our immediate approach to someone wronging us? I understand Juno is supposed to be a goddess and there is apparently this "big" difference between the mythological deities and humans, but I am failing to see the line that divides the two in this situation. Revenge seems like a way of forcing others to feel our hurt by cutting them down to match the pain we feel; it seems to assume the other party has never felt pain before. The party performing the revenge views it as justice, the party receiving revenge views it as injustice. Are not the gods supposed to be just? Wherein lies Juno's justice in her revenge? I see no justice in revenge, so how could she truly be a goddess?

P.S. Commented on Olivia's

P.P.S. Sorry this is late.

Lust in Ancient Literature

It’s interesting to me how Greek mythology continually uses the power of beauty and the power of lust throughout its stories. First we see it in The Iliad. Helen’s beauty caused a war. One man’s lust killed resulted in the death of hundreds of men. It seems to me in Ancient literature, lust is often a turning point in Ancient literature plot-lines. In the Aeneid the plot is significantly affected by the power of lust.

"What I propose is to ensnare the queen
by guile beforehand, pin her down in passion
so that she cannot be changed by any power,
but will be kept on my side by profound
love for Aeneas.”

So, let’s back up. Aeneas lands in Agenor, in a land ruled by a queen named Dido. When Aeneas and his fleet land there they have nothing. According to a prophecy, Aeneas will be the downfall to Dido’s kingdom. Aphrodite’s mission was to make Dido completely unaware of this, so that she could pave the way for Aeneas. Aphrodite decides to send her son Desire (also known as cupid) to take over Dido.

What I find most interesting is the part that says, “Pin her down in passion so that she cannot be changed by any power.” Whoa! That has to be some kind of power, if Aphrodite thinks that it cannot be changed by any other power. In Greek literature we see gods going back and forth using their powers to out-do, or undo something another god has done.

Why do we see the influence of lust so often playing a key role in Ancient Literature? Was it because that was only a part of their culture? Is there something more. I think there is a certain amount of truth to be learned from this observation. Maybe our culture does not realize how powerful lust and beauty are. It’s to be respected just like a snake that can poison you.

"When in Rome" Nawm Nawm

"When in Rome, do as the Romans do..." I found it humors how Mitchell said Rome "eats gods", Meaning they are pretty much a "melting pot" to others beliefs (see what I did there, I'll try to stray more away from Jeremy's post now and go a completely different direction).

I'm finding it hard to figure out what to blog about because everything I think about leads me back to Roman America...

There was the comment about "Hearu h bell w ad oah the chs." At least that's what I heard the first few times. haha- "Head rules the belly with the Aid of the chest."

Na, how about this…

What about the whole Nature vs. Accident thing. I never really knew a better argument than "Well God sed it in thu Bibleeee" (I'm doing my Lucedale impression)
Haha. "It's just a guess but marriage might have a little something to do with procreation" Maybe Mitchell was trolling, but I think he's on to something. Nature vs. Accident. It doesn't take a skilled Biologist to know that two men can't naturally have children. Sometimes heterosexual relations also cannot procreate, but that is an issue with nature- not the accident, or whatever you'd call it when a guy thinks another guy is cute. To expound on the purpose of marriage even more, you marry someone so you can have a companion, a helper in your purpose and an aid in your ministry. But, then again, who cares about ministry as long as you are happy, satisfied and your pleasures are being met. If my sarcasm was confusing I am saying that just using the Nature vs. Accident argument is a good enough argument in itself in the whole “Gay Marriage” debate.

Commented on Jeremy’s