site banner
KulakRevolt  6mo ago (anarchonomicon.substack.com)   1000 thread views

We Are all Greeks now: Athens and the Invention of the Human

anarchonomicon.substack.com

Piece I wrote on the even now under-estimated impact of Grecco-Roman Culture, and how Modern Culture IS just classical culture with some odd conceits thrown in.

I Contrast Harold Bloom's "Shakespeare: The Invention of the Human" and his thesis that most of what westerners consider "Human Nature" are actually just cultural artifacts of how our culture has adapted Shakespearean psychological ideas and self conceptions... Which would not hold across cultures unexposed to Shakespeare or Shakespeare inspired fiction and narratives...

And I contrast Ancient Greek Texts with biblical texts, with shocking results.

10
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Are you deliberately capitalizing extra words as an affectation of the Baby Boomer style (which would admittedly be a growth market, beyond our circle)? Writing late at night?

Do you have issues with text to speech? IIRC you had problems with broken hands or something similar. Your ideas are good and interesting but I just find the grammar and capitalization really off-putting. Then again, I never got more than 20 followers on twitter or a decent substack so your total writing ability is clearly greater than mine...

Nice work.

The re-invention of the Bible as a Greek text with a folded narrative, wherein a teller of parables is represented as a parable itself is the true invention of today's human. Bloom missed this (for obvious reasons) even though he catches the phenomenon in Hamlet and Tempest and so credits Shakespeare w/ the invention of self-reflexive narratives, thereby conceding this is where the human starts: folded storytelling.

More interesting to me is how this was only made possible by what the Greeks reappropriated from the Persians. The first folded culture, wherein they conceptualized a being who could both: a) be itself and b) create itself at the same time. The story needed a story about the story itself in its telling. It's the Hebrew (see Egyptian) "I am become" tailored to the microcosm. This was destroyed by the Greeks and replaced with the twined notions of Truth and Logic but it lived on in their texts.

We now live in a world where our stories and our stories about stories (and ourselves) require explicit folding. This self knowledge is what we call "Human" today.

I think the cultural impact of single people, especially Shakespeare, is usually overstated. He didn't invent the yo momma joke. Our first record of it is in 3500 BC. He didn't invent 1700 words either; really he didn't invent any but rather took old words, slightly modified them, and used them in new contexts. If you think about it for a moment this makes sense--why in the world would he make up a random nonsense word and assume audiences would just follow along based on context clues? He wasn't that influential in his time.

He and specific Greek authors both came up with a few new ideas, but mostly parroted existing ideas and memes in a format which has long outlived their true "origins" (inasmuch as such ideas can actually have origins, rather than simply having existed since the beginning of human culture with slight modifications over the years).

EDIT: said "understated", meant "overstated"

Cute thesis, I guess, but sloppy execution. Consider asking for a proofreader, or perhaps just taking your meds.

I was recently reading How I Taught the Iliad to Chinese Teenagers, a fascinating report (with accompanying syllabus). There were a few sections that actually made me think of you:

But most of all I focus on the mystery of their fall, the “Bronze Age Collapse” that littered the Greek isles with Mycenaean ruins, ruins that would have towered over the humble abodes of “Dark Age” Greece.
Homer’s Greeks lived in the ruins of a golden age. They had forgotten how to write and read, but they still remembered a time when the Aegean was full of great cities, wealthy kings, and enormous armies. The Iliad portrayed that golden world as it was imagined hundreds of years later—and explained why this golden age was no more. It is a true piece of post-apocalyptic fiction.

More importantly, it makes an excellent case that, yes, the Greeks had a visceral understanding of human nature.

Before class begins draw on the blackboard a series of concentric circles. Label the outer circle “mankind.” The next circle in, “The Argives.” The next circle in, “Friends-in-arms.” The final circle, “Patroclus and Achilles.” Last of all, in the very center of the circle, leave an unmarked dot.

After the standard round of quizzing and questions, explain that in today’s class we return to Achilles. Achilles is not the same person he once was. In literature departments they would call him a “dynamic character.” …. This is the scene where Achilles refuses to spare the life of Lycaon, the man who he had once taken captive before. In this speech Achilles says once “it warmed my heart a bit to spare some Trojans” but now “not a single Trojan flees his death.” Why? What has happened to Achilles?
The obvious answer: Patroclus is dead. But why would this drive Achilles to barbarity?
Tell the class that the diagram you have put up on the board is one way to conceptualize what has happened to Achilles. At some point in the past—say when Lycaon was taken captive—Achilles had affection for all mankind, respecting even those he fought. But war, by necessity, often forces those who fight it to view their enemies as alien, or somewhat less than human.

Erase the outer circle.

That still left Achilles with a large community of fellow soldiers, the army of the Argives. But his connection with this community was broken when Achilles was humiliated in the council of Book I.

Erase the next circle.

At this point Achilles still felt comradeship with the other commanders and close friends, who fought by his side for many years. But this comradeship now has conditions. Have the class read Book IX.748-750. What would cause Achilles to “hate” these old friends?
Have a student read aloud Book XVI.113-119 (“Oh would to god… you and I alone!”). Note how Achilles puts the Argives on the same plane as the Trojans.

Erase the next circle.

Now the only circle left is the one labeled “Achilles and Patroclus.” And indeed, that is what our passage says (“You and I Alone!”). Achilles’ entire world has been reduced to his relationship with one man, the one comrade to have stayed loyal to him as the Greek ships burn.
And now that man is dead.

Erase the final circle.

Have one of the students turn to page 502 and read lines 498-500 (“I am destined to die here…”). Remind students that this sentiment is the polar opposite of Achilles’ pronouncements in Book IX. The Achilles of Book IX said that nothing at Troy was worth dying for; the Achilles of Book XX says that nothing is worth living for.

It doesn’t matter that the Greeks lived in an alien honor culture, believed in angry sky warlords, and were limited to oral tradition. They knew human nature. The rest—all the linguistics and cultural references—are party tricks by comparison.

Consider asking for a proofreader, or perhaps just taking your meds.

You know better than this. One-day timeout.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats