Greek Creation Myths: What’s Love Got To Do With It?

Without doubt, every culture has a creation myth of one sort or another, most with remarkable similarities and parallels. These myths – especially their parallels - reflect not only their originating culture, but also demonstrate elements of the cultures they came into contact with. By comparing creation myths of separate cultures, one can discern social and cultural elements of both cultures. One overwhelming parallel within otherwise differing creation mythologies is the concept of all creation involving some sort of love figure/character. In the Greek creation myth as presented in Hesiod’s Theogony, love in the form of Eros is not only the primary creative force, but also the primary origination of all self-awareness.

The Epicurean Foundations of Atheism

Epicurus (341BC-270BC, the founder of Epicureanism, a philosophy mostly known for its pleasure-based ethical viewpoint, discussed the existence and nature of god[1] extensively. However, his heavy emphasis on the atomic nature of the universe and importance of sense-perception for determining reality and truth conflicts with the very argument he uses for the existence of god. The tenets of Epicureanism create a cosmology, worldview and ethical system that has no need for god, by any definition, and may have created the rational foundation for later Atheistic thought.

The Means to the Ends of the Means

Throughout the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses deliberation, choices, and results, specifically “means” and “ends.” For Aristotle, how one gets to a final result matters, not the actual result itself. The means to the ends are of utmost importance and are what require the most deliberation. The concept of deliberation and responsibility for the choices one makes (not necessarily the results of those choices) is a difficult, if not nearly alien, one for the modern day reader to comprehend. Yet it may be perhaps the most important of all points made by Aristotle throughout the Nicomachean Ethics. How, when so much of Aristotle’s teachings have survived and thrived through the ages, has this one failed to hold weight? Our success-at-any-price consumer-driven culture, our insistence on a “what’s in it for me” attitude towards good choices, is completely contrary to Aristotle’s view. In light of the Enron scandal (and others), it is imperative that our modern-day attitudes be reoriented towards Aristotle’s understanding of means and ends.

"Saved" and "Satire": A Critical Introduction to a Critical Reintroduction

Dustin Griffin’s Satire: A Critical Reintroduction thoroughly explores the elements and nature of satire, especially concentrating on historic examples of the genre. According to Griffin, for a text to be considered satire it must contain four essential elements: inquiry, provocation, display and play. The movie Saved displays elements of Griffin’s theory, and also highlights weaknesses within his theory.

Critical Response: "Saved"

The movie, Saved, a farcical satire of Evangelical Christians and Christian high schools, addresses multiple cultural and religious issues. The biggest issue, however, is not necessarily religious or cultural, but humanistic: Whatever you believe, it is not enough to just believe, you must also live it daily.

The message is abundantly apparent throughout the plot, sub-plots, characters, dialogue, and setting. While there are many examples, the despicable character of Hillary Faye is the most obvious example. Hillary professes her Faith the loudest, most stridently, and most often, yet also lives her faith the least. While she may still be a virgin (and willing to shoot-to-kill to protect that virginity), she lacks compassion for others, especially her own handicapped brother, gossips with the intention to cause hurt/embarrassment, defaces school property and blames others, swears she is innocent to God, throws a Bible as a weapon, and looks down upon all others who do not believe as she does. All of these actions are decidedly unchristian, and very much against the basic teachings of the very faith she professes.

Regardless of what you believe, even if that belief system is “no” belief, Saved proposes that your belief system is meaningless if you do not apply it to your daily life and actually walk your own talk, practice what you preach. Without living your own belief system, you risk becoming a hateful spiteful person worthy of little except ridicule.

Written for Professor Campbell’s Religion & Pop Culture class at University of Colorado – Colorado Springs, 17^th April 2006.

A Trinity of Trinities in Plato’s "Republic"

In reading Plato’s Republic, it is abundantly obvious that Plato found some value and balance in presenting complex concepts and explanations in tripartite formats. From the soul to states themselves, trinities[1] are everywhere in the Republic. The three strongest trinities within the Republic revolve around individuals (souls), societies (cultures/groups), and states (governments). Each serves as a metaphor for the other and together forms a grand trinity of the whole, serving to provide understanding about human nature and the nature and purpose of humans, societies and states.

Critical Response: "The Watchmen"

In Alan Moore and Dave Gibbon’s “The Watchmen,” there are multiple themes and narrative arcs touching on a large number of societal ills, ethical and moral issues, and political issues. The most compelling of the many themes, the ethics of scientific and technological advances, is simply expressed through the use of graffiti: “Who Watches the Watchmen?” This tag line is on multiple pages, but does not refer to just “watchmen” – the “protectors” – but also to those in power and especially, those who create. Moore uses scientific and technological advances – some real, some fictional – to question not only the need for these advances, but the ethics of them. The ethical issues revolving around some scientific advances are obvious, such as the atomic bomb, but other seemingly innocuous advances also have negative repercussions. Through the use of his characters, especially the God-like Jon (aka Dr. Manhattan), Moore brings to bear the idea that there must be some sort of ethical oversight brought into play on scientific and technological creators. Someone – ultimately meaning everyone – needs to question not only the need for our continuing fast-paced scientific advance, but oversee the use of such advances. It is not good enough to just create for the sake of creating; there must be questions asked before creating as to the good and bad of such creation.

Scientific advances in “The Watchmen” created Jon, a being with God-like powers and vision. Jon did not ask to become God-like, nor was he necessarily comfortable with his powers, yet once he had them, he would use them or not as only he saw fit. There was no control or power over Jon, no one to oversee him, no panel or government that could manage the use or misuse of this created being, Jon. No one “watched” the scientists when they created the device that ultimately created Jon, and no one “watched” the creation from this device. In the end, Jon decides that he may create life – human life – himself in another galaxy. No one questions even this decision.

When Moore asks “Who Watches the Watchmen,” he refers not just to police-like authorities, political or scientific powers, he also refers to God him/herself. Ultimately, Moore is asking, “Who Watches God.”

Written for Professor Campbell’s Religion & Pop Culture class at the University of Colorado – Colorado Springs, 13^th March 2006.