I don't have to be an expert on mythology or history to tell you that a culture who is willing to build a ton of massive stone temples to all the various gods probably believes that doing that is going to bring favor from said gods.
@Nikola Kolchakov well yeah some did, but we can see via cicero's letters that members of the rich did believe in the gods, such as his wife. We also see via Pompeii grafiti that likely richer people did also believe in the gods, such as the graffiti invoking a curse and claiming someone slept with Venus. plus having the people's tax money spent on what they want is usually a good thing, especially if the representatives don't agree with it, showing they still do what the people want.
I had a history professor straight up say "lol, the ancient Greeks and Roman sailors didn't believe any of the old sea stories that got turned into myth", and I was like "dude, we have people nowadays that believe in bigfoot and UFO's, do you really think ancient people were somehow more rational?" I think secular intellectuals are sometimes so up their own ass that they don't realize how natural believing crazy stories is.
@@waldemarsikorski4759 it is certain that it happened, but not exactly with a Hebrew named *Noah and an ark full of animals. "The land is inundated, many people drown, but 1 rural family builds a ship and survives along with its livestock". Doesn't sound that crazy anymore. The biblical flood of Genesis has happened, it just wasn't global. The Levant was mostly affected. The Trojan war is also no longer a myth, as archaeological evidence points to its destruction. The heroes of that war might have existed in some way too, but their names were later assigned to them by Homer or someone before him.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard But you can point to smaller things, like Cyclops and Dragons and Krakens and so forth. Sure, we can identify this with that, but the fact remains that people genuinely believed in monsters - not something that they merely misidentified, but actual monsters. There's a big difference between "I believe in bigfoot" and "I believe in a bear in the woods that I will call bigfoot".
I think whenever somebody talks about what the Greeks or Romans believed, it should be tacitly accepted that they're referring mainly to the elite and intellectuals of Greek and Roman society. Of course the peasants and slaves were uneducated and superstitious, and they could and would believe anything, but the elites mostly just used religion as a civic instrument to more efficiently rule, while the intellectuals definitely treated the heroes and gods with a kind of Voltairean irreverence. Central to Plato's metaphysics is a single god, and not Zeus, Hades or Heracles, and few of the ancient philosophers ever mentioned the traditional gods at all.
I always thought that what we call Greek and Roman myths were their religion. Most of them believed them as many if not most of us believe in our religions. Like with us, some believed every word, others regarded them as life lessons based on some "real" story hundreds of years before.
The Romans assimilated the culture and the religions of those they conquered. It was a good way to get those conquered into compliance. The absorption of Christianity by the Roman church is a good example.
@@alanfbrookes9771 That was what most Mediterranean cultures did, really. It was touched on briefly in the video, but with every different settlement and city-state having their own gods, when another settlement was captured, the gods were captured as well. So, for example, as Sparta conquered the Peleponnese, they would also conquer the gods of the other city states. Sparta winning a war meant that the Spartan Athena was stronger than the loser's Athena, Spartan Ares was stronger than the loser's Ares, so on and so forth.
@@alanfbrookes9771 it was not assimilation but influence. There was no roman government or ruling cohort saying “oh the greeks seem to have some nice myths lets assimilate them.” That misconception is dumb af, starting from the fact that both the greeks and the romans are indoeuropean cultures who had interacted with one another since the bronze age, so it obviously makes sense that they have similar myths and religious elements. You dont see people saying that the scandinavians “assimilated” germanic myths because Odin is the germanic Woden. Cultures with proximity influence each other and adopt religious practices that have similarities given their geographic needs. Assimilation may have occurred in some sections of the population with cults and travel of ideas but never a whole culture being “copied” lmao
"You have unfortunate ancestry." "If you think it's unfortunate to be descendent from the Gods." "Now which God is that?" "The Julia descendent from Aeneas, who was..." "The son of Venus, yes yes. I recall Marius making such claims. There are many people these days who claim to be descendents from the Gods." "We have a crest which proves it" "I believe you can have them fashioned in the market place for a couple of dinars..." *Argument between dictator Sulla and 18 year-old Julius Caesar*
BROKE: The myths really happened WOKE: The myths are allegories for the actions of the gods, beings beyond our true understanding and who may indeed be but aspects of a greater ideal being from which all things come forth BESPOKE: The myths really happened and Kratos is why they're not around anymore
Dang Kratos! BESPOKE P.S. For those ancient enough to remember, Xena murdered all of world mythology first, and she's even somehow also Jesus, like Kratos still seems prophesied to become.
So the original plot of God of War III where Kratos killed zues at the start and other pantheons invade Greece so Kratos teams up with the God of War from different myths and eradicated mythology in the world and became the three wise men that will give gifts to Jesus
Well considering the sun and moon are still acting normally and the world isn't in complete chaos like the ending of GoW 3, I'd say that last one is complete fiction.
Lucian is great. His Dialogues of the Gods include such gems as "Heracles and Asclepius arguing like children about who gets to sit where" or "Hera and Leto snarking each other passive aggressively about their weird kids".
I have always loved him since I read The Hall. In it, there's a bit where a character is arguing about how sight is the most crucial element to someone liking something, and gives a few examples of two things, and how people usually prefer the visually pleasing one over the other. However one of his points really stood out to me, as he claims that the Sirens are far worse as seducing men than the Gorgon/Medusa was. He points out how the Siren's alluring song will fade from the victim with time and they will return to normal, but the Gorgon on the other hand, didn't merely turn people to stone with their gaze, but that their beauty, "irresistible in might, won it's way to the inmost soul", and would make the person freeze up to such a degree that the legends claim he'd turned to stone. That he chose, of all things, to include what is effectively "The Gorgon is way hotter than the Sirens" as a talking point in the text was absolutely hilarious. Even if it's satirical, it still suggests that the people of his time were comfortable enough with the idea of "waifu-izing" monsters from legend, not unlike what the anime fandoms do online nowadays, that making a claim like this was acceptable. I especially loved the specific wording of "admiration(or so the legend goes) turned him to stone" makes me can't help but think on some level he did personally hold that "hot take" opinion, and was using the character to sneak it out into public. 1900 years ago, and men still thought with their genitals to the point that even the Gorgon, the horrifying creature slain by Perseus, was fair game "cuz she's damn pretty". The man seriously had a talent with writing, I can only imagine what sorts of phenomenal works he'd be able to make if he lived in the modern day, and could mock and satirize modern context.
@Late0NightPC "Medusa was hotter than Mermaids" and "weebs have existed everywhere throughout history" are not takes I was expecting to adopt today but here we are.
Lol yeah. After looking into various legends, you'd be shocked at how often there are stories of someone willingly going after/admiring a being they know to likely kill them on sight. While modern anime fandoms certain have let the idea spread way more, it does seem that "man will always want monster girl GFs" is certainly not a new development.
I remember reading that a piece of graffiti in Pompeii reads 'If anyone does not believe in Aphrodite, know that I married her today' or something to that effect. This was interesting to me since it implied that there were people who didn't believe Aphrodite existed - so at least some of the poorer people of Roman times were atheistic. I imagine it's a lot like today: most people believed, a few didn't, and Saturnalia didn't need to be religious because everyone loves their Christmas analogue.
@@RayTC Yeah, he's not saying he LITERALLY married Aphrodite. But just the use of the phrase 'if anyone does not believe in Aphrodite' implies that at least some people didn't - that it wasn't taken as an absolute given the Gods were real.
In his book, Marcus Aurelius even questions the existence of the gods. Later he says "of course we all know the gods exist", but i found it really interesting how he put it into question first.
@Scott Alleman I've always wondered which god Epicurus meant to critique, he lived in 300 BC so christianity didn't exist yet, and I don't think greek gods were believed to be omnipotent nor benevolent, though the latter is debatable.
@@AM-vn4cc no. There was always the one or another guy who questioned it. You make it sound like it was just an usual thing for anyone like today and that is not true. So the ones who did can of course be considered special. Not only because, as in your example, their stories often don't end well.
@@santiagoo.8958 In pre-christianity texts from antiquity i have found quite a few examples where someone talks about "god" without any further explanaition. I don't know what that means but it is interesting
You always manage to ask the most niche and interesting questions when it comes to such a seemingly well known period of history! Keep up the great work!
Regarding gods as mere forces of nature was actually seen as atheistic by ancient Greeks *People in ancient pre-Christian cultures generally did not tend to think of deities as personifications of natural phenomena; instead, they most often thought of deities as supernatural beings who could be appealed to for aid in certain situations. As we shall see in moment, the idea that deities were personifications of natural phenomena did exist in ancient times, but it was an idea that circulated mainly in philosophical circles and was not at all popular with the masses.* *Starting in around the late fifth century BC, some radical thinkers and intellectuals began to consider the possibility that the deities might be personifications of the things with which they were associated. For instance, the Sophist Prodikos of Keos.* *Thinkers like Prodikos, however, were far outside the realm of mainstream Greek religious thought. Indeed, on account of his arguments, Prodikos was widely accused of being an ἄθεος (átheos).* *The Athenian comic playwright Aristophanes (lived c. 446 - c. 386 BC) ruthlessly mocked the idea of deities as personifications of natural phenomena in his comedy The Clouds, which was originally performed at the City Dionysia in Athens in 423 BC. In this play, Aristophanes portrays the philosopher Socrates as teaching that Zeus has been replaced by “the Whirlwind.”*
Those who believed in their Gods did not consider them supernatural, but part of the everyday world of Nature. That's what made them real and not allegorical, metaphorical or outside the realm of the world they too inhabited.
The personifications of natural phenomena reeks of cults, BTW... You know, like sun-worshipers gathering around a guru to smoke weed and have an orgy. Seeing by the Bible, Jews very clearly considered people who worship nature as primitive kooks, but associated that with paganism. Interesting to see that polytheists also found the weirdos worshiping actual winds and rains as heretics lmao.
I remember the poignant scene in the movie "Spartacus" where the naive slave girl explains to Spartacus how the wind god Aeolus is usually shut up in a cave but is allowed out at times to exercise and sometimes wreak havoc on the earth.Spartacus himself didn't seem to be very convinced by the story!
@@Jays6926 I think Spartacus was from Thrace which is today's European Turkey and southern Bulgaria -just north of Greece -their gods were very similar to Greek and Roman ones and actually some myths like that of Orpheus was derived from there and I think Spartacus was descended from Roman colonists anyway.Pagan religions are not like the Bible religions as pagans recognize all gods even foreign ones and integrate them into their own beliefs.
@@kaloarepo288 well that's the definition of polytheism - believing there are many gods, and monotheism - believing there is only one God. Abrahamic faiths don't just refuse to accept other religions, they openly deny these multiple gods existing at all, and that the idols that pagans worship are just wood and rocks, and not any deities made artificially.
I think it’s important to highlight how meaningful religious stories often are as well. Sure there are silly ones, but most have several layers of meaning in a way that the books we read nowadays and the movies we watch rarely have. The way stories were passed down back then made them as relevant to life and the world as they could be.
myths are as high-context as any sort of media can be. Borges referred to as poetry as 'describing what is.' Myths were passed down orally, as poetry. They were describing things as they were, filled with meaning yet as direct as possible. Like, look at the celtic bards.
Interesting as always! Topic idea for a future video - CURSES. I know lots of curses have been found asking so-and-so to do such-and-such to a certain someone.
I just finished touring a temple to Minerva and there most definitely was not only a priest but also a haruspex and altars to give sacrifices. So they most definitely had priests running temples. Not to mention, there’s also the vestal virgins. There were curse tablets found all over invoking the gods’ powers to smite enemies. Also, wasn’t the term “opiate of the masses” first attributed to Marx? I’ve never heard of Aristotle saying that.
I think he just said there was no main organization of priests, not that there were local priests for local temples. Also, I think he just put in the "opiate of the masses" quote to be clever, I don't think Aristotle ever said it
This video was awesome. I also highly recommend the Secret History of Western Esotericism Podcast. The host covers a wide variety of topics ranging from the Chaldean oracles to Philo and Apuleius to Zosimos of Panopolis.
part of it is because it’s hard not to project our own understandings of things onto the past. you can’t get outside your own head and view the world as another person, so a lot of people tacitly project themselves onto the past and see secularism where there was none. a good example is greek plays, which many critics held for years to be atheistic in some way, like those of euripides. we now know he was fairly devout in his day to day life, so the meanings we see in the text probably weren’t the meanings he wished to convey
I remember a history professor summing up Greek religious beliefs as follows: "The god(esse)s are assholes, but they're in charge, so you better abide by their rules." Honestly seems pretty accurate.
Nice to see that the Greeks were also plagued by intellectuals missing the point of the stories of their times. Mind you, it sounds like most of them at least had the sense to keep the myths, rather than torching them to rebuild humanity from scratch like modern demagogues have tried.
There is a wonderful book by Paul Veyne titled exactly this: 'Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths.' Any good study on the matter should probably reference and cite Veyne.
Plato didn't think that the myths were inherently subversive (since he himself presents a lot of original and traditional myths in his dialogues). He only was against misuse of myths since they exert very strong influence.
@@scottalleman4564 Plato was right about philosopher-kings though. Who would you choose to rule over you: very cautiosly selected smart people who were bred and raised to rule for the interests of the whole community or rather your typical modern politicians who use demagogy and rhetorics to stay in power at all cost and are only pawns for the greater administrative system?
@@MrWarenia To bad that the philosopher king idea is nonsense in real life, and people raised to rule will inevitably lack compassion and understanding of the community and their needs.
@Scott's Precious Little Account as someone who is reading Republic currently and trying to get a deeper umderstanding of his works... from my understanding, we really dont know what he believed on this specific topic. Plato himself never said such a thing that we know of. His character Socrates (who is separate from the real Socrates) said this, but even this character wasnt certain of this idea/could have just been giving an argument and not something he believes. In Plato's writings, Socrates is very unsure of everything (hence the famous i know that i know nothing line) and this is shown in Republic several times through out. The character may have not even thought this "philosopher-king" was possible and this utopian society was only used as a tool to give possible answers that the book asks. It can be rather difficult to understand Plato's work correctly, as there are a lot of subtleties and sarcasm that could easily confuse us modern readers (he is over 2000 years old in a very different culture/society). There are even arguments to be had that the entirety of Republic is satire (though i dont know if it is a popular view). I am by no means an expert, but i think you are mistaken by stating as a fact that he believed this, and even more so mistaken in simply brushing off such a brilliant person
Fantastic as always. Glad you highlighted the fact that classical religions had no creed to speak of. Ever since Bill Mahers "religilous" people have repeated this myth that ancient religions had a messiah myth identical to Christianity when they obviously didn't
You're confusing concepts. Mystery cults (most of them subsections of the ancient belief systems) had multiple innovations in common with early Christian cults: a defined canon, personal (rather than collective) salvation, a passion (suffering - my be death or something else), revelation as a way of understanding the heavens, and the notion of a mythical realm where the story's events actually happened, which would be revealed to those higher initiated (basically the ones literate enough to ask questions). That last one could erode leading to literalist interpretations, leaving the "mystery" to secondary aspects. The ones that had that erosion take place quickly were the cults that were more derived, and then split off as independent religions, like Manichaenism and Christianity. Theoretically Wesir (Osiris) cult was heading that way, but it was prevented from deriving too much by the fact that the priesthood was too integrated with the rest of ancient Kemeticism, and had a financially convenient position under the status-quo. Most importantly, these were cults that you bought into. They were not the traditional, background religious beliefs of the people. They got more popular and independent as time went on, thanks to urbanization at first. Beginning with the crisis of the 3rd century, it was desperation that propelled the more mystical philosophies to the forefront.
"Congratulations, Alexander. King of the Macedonians, who would have guessed that?" "Yeah. Not bad at all for a little bastard of Zeus..." *Hephaestion and Alexander after the death of Philip II*
I have read some platonic dialogues and they seem like Socrates and Plato belived in the existence of the gods, but not in the myths about them(they even call out the poets as responsible for that). That makes me think that what mattered for them was the rituals to the gods(accepting them as real), but whether if they believed in their stories was more like an open question, not necessarily endorced by the state (like The Divine Comedy, the Lost Paradise or Faust).
I think it's also important to realize that we, right now, have so much more acces to technology, information and different cultures than our ancestors did. Imagine looking out at a starry night and not having the faintest clue that they're gas explosions. Imagine looking at the sun (not too long, mind) and not knowing _why_ that thing is warm and moves. Yeah, you'll always have sceptics, but the power of myths is palpable. Take John Wick! That's kind of a modern myth that we could vaguely, maybe, consider to be real. Of course, we know it's a movie, but people still try to emulate the movie, making it a modern myth.
I'm pretty sure even animals knew the Sun was warm also that John Wick comparison is stupid, it's a movie, if you want an actual good example of myths use Bigfoot or Nessy
Recently, I' ve finished reading the biographies of Ceaser and Augustus and I must say that it didn't appear as if the people of the time didn't believe in their own stories. Not all or all the way sure, but saying things such as: people regarded all of it as a simple fake story seems wrong. Maybe the problem is that the belief wasn't so rigid as you might assume from Abrahamic religions, but the power of cults, traditions and the importance of temples hints at a quite religious society. For Romans the whole concept of separating religious practices from government or just everyday life would seem strange. Sometimes I think that us, modern people, don't realize how much the world has changed in regards of religious practices here in the west at least. Furthermore, I think we should attack Carthage.
Here's a video idea: did most Romans have curly hair? All of the sculptures seem to have wavy or curly hair. Was that just a stylized interpretation of hair? Or is it a fact that all (most) Romans had non-straiight hair?
@@wiegraf9006 I think he's more refering to the fact that mycenean Greeks and most south Europeans populations have good chunk of EEF ancestry (who were mostly from Anatolia and middle east/near East regions). While the EEF ancestry is lower in Northern Europeans.
@@kiq654 same with male appendages. Bigger ones meant a man was unruly and savage but smaller ones were more masculine and shown a man to be intelligent
Hi there sir. Your video has _two_ titles for me :o Above the video title you gave it, it has an extra title called “questions about Greek and Rome” and the title appears on both my home page and the video itself. Did you implement this yourself or is it something RUclips has placed on the video?? It’s really cool because it gives extra info to potential viewers in a different text which makes the video stand out and I was just wondering how you did it ^_^ Also excellent video thank you 🙏🏻
Hera: "YOU HAVE CHEATED ON ME AGAIN WITH ONE OF OUR CHILDREN, RIGHT? I'M GOING TO KILL YOU RIGHT HERE AND NOW" Zeus: "I'm really sorry, honey. As the God of Law and Justice, I promise I won't do it again" Hera: "Ohhh, I can't be mad at you if you talk to me like that, Zeusy. Just don't do that again, ok?" 😊 Zeus: "Okie, dokie!" 👌 *Proceeds to sleep with a human woman, this time the wife of macedonian king Philip II*
Paul Veyne, Did the Greeks Believe Their Myths, p. 18: “Mythological space and time were secretly different from our own. A Greek put the gods ‘in heaven,’ but he would have been astounded to see them in the sky. He would have been no less astounded if someone, using time in its literal sense, told him that Hephaestus had just remarried or that Athena had aged a great deal lately. Then he would have realized that in his own eyes mythic time had only a vague analogy with daily temporality; he would also have thought that a kind of lethargy had always kept him from recognizing this difference. The analogy between these temporal worlds disguises their hidden plurality.”
I feel as though we’re looking at this two black and white. At one point the stories had to come from somewhere, and we can assume that the originators did believe. But like all traditions it evolved and can be split into religious and secular. Maybe some ancients viewed the myths literally and others metaphorically. We can go even further and say some rituals and symbology is still to practiced to this day with our holidays and pagan influences. We aren’t disconnected from our past, that’s what makes history so fun.
I think it should generally be assumed we can’t actually know what the average common person thought about anything in a time so dominated by a ruling elite such as ancient greece and rome, only what those doing the writing would have wanted us to know
//Neither the Greeks nor the Romans ever developed a canon of sacred texts, caste of priests...// They both used oracles who were the original "priesthood"
"Did they believe their myths?" Is like asking if we believe our myths. Depending on the person, place, culture and time people wax and wane from believing. As well everyone would have their own take or believe In part.
I suspect that Diogenes the Cynic would be surprised to find his name in a list of "Notable Epicureans". That's almost as surprising as Marcus Aurelius being omitted from a list of "Notable Stoics".
I think this is the wrong question to ask. Most ancient Greek people didn't have a systematic theology. They had a local shrine or temple dedicated to one of the gods and they would worship and participate in sacrifice to that god.
Exactly. I think looking at modern Shinto practitioners would give a good idea as to what it was like. Partake in the rituals, know the myth, but every person has their own belief about the literal meaning, and most do it because it’s what their people do.
@@wiegraf9006 No of course not. I'm talking about what the every day practice for your average Greek peasant or farmer would look like. They may or may not have been aware of other gods, but they had a local temple that was dedicated to one specific god among the pantheon, they didn't worship all of them all the time.
Which Lucian work had the philosopher prove to the gods their non existence? It sounds great, like the joke in hitchhikers guide to the galaxy (vanished in a puff of logic), but I can’t find any reference to something like that in Lucian’s works by googling
I got your book on audio to keep me company at work one night, but the narrator butchers most of the pronunciations. You should make your own recording. Your lecturing voice is like butter.
The Greeks believed that the gods were the cosmogenic forces of nature and that they are the ONE (EN) divided. But not only of nature but of ourselves. This is very apparent to those who know the Greek language as it is the basis for decoding all the myths and the religion of greece. Myth = Μυθος = Μυω (induct) + Θειο (Holy, Godly, Heavenly) which means the myths were "tools" for the subtle induction of the masses to the higher ideas. And the formal induction into the mysteries by becoming able to decode them. For example Ares is the force of collision cosmically (War, Entropy) and the personification of Ανδρεια (Manliness) in ourselves. Zeus has 3 Names: Διας, Ζευς, Ζηνας (Dias, Zeus, Zinas) for he is the most powerfull force cosmically that which Divides (Διαιρει) and Unifies (Ζευγει) off of which comes Life (Ζηνας, Ζωη). Male and female are unified from which comes the (Ζυγωτης) union of sperm and ovary and then it Divides itself to become a living being. In ourselves Zeus is the Mind (Νοηση). All this and much more become apparent and obvious only if you know the greek language and from reading Plato who, through Socrates, explains all this in codes. So in reality foreign scientists cannot truly rely on translation because all the translations are wrong or misleading. Unfortunately those who dont know greek cannot read many books which explain all of these in detail
the word "literally" means expressed on literary terms such as books. Definitions are very important here. Once you get down to it its not so hard to define what reality, myths, and beliefs are.
You've basically summed up religious secularism for all of human history in one video, not just the ancient Greeks. In nearly every society on earth most people will identify with the popular religion in the area, yet only a small minority will truly believe it as fully factual and an important part of their daily lives. Modernity hasn't changed the fact most people are completely comfortable never pondering the nature of the divine.
I've seen others point this out and to me it not only makes sense, but should be rather obvious. Some random ancient Roman pleb was probably more concerned about his day to day struggles than the gods. The average person was probably similar to many agnostics or "Christian-in-name-only" people today. People that might engage and have loose religious beliefs, but don't actually adhere to a creed. And I say "Christian-in-name-only" because I've met too many people that self-proclaim as Christian, but don't know ANYTHING about Christianity. They do it because culture, not faith. Literally had a self-proclaimed "Christian" get confused when I asked "is Jesus your lord and savior?" He was like "uh... Well I believe in God." Yeah, you're not fucking Christian.
@Wiegraf This only applies to dogmatic monotheist religions who claim to know "the truth" and expect you to believe in it. Classic paganism or even Buddhism are vastly different from this approach.
@@LegioXXI Not even monotheistic religions does what that other commenter says. He/she is underestimating how people would destroy each other's beliefs even when it's just different interpretations of the same God. There is a long history of many sectors of Christians having ended up in crime just to prove their point against other Christians.
I don't necessarily see Sallustius "hastening to add" that the myths shouldn't be taken literally in the quote you provided around 5:00. Was there more to that quote? To me, it seems like he's describing the ideal formal qualities of myths, but that's not quite the same thing as saying their content is totally made up or not factually true. Are you reading that quote in context with some other writings (by him or his contemporaries) that bolster your point? Why do you say that he's referring to the literallness or factual accuracy of the myths in that quote? I enjoyed the video, by the way. Definitely a fascinating and enlightening overview of the subject.
Haven’t watched the video yet but I assume it was prolly a lot like nowadays where most ppl question the validity of the myths and some either didn’t believe or were forced to believe by the state. Human minds haven’t changed too much in a single century, there have always been ppl with questions. But also like religion nowadays a lot of ppl prolly just believed with blind faith.
Correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t the practice of calling to a specific god often tied to the belief the city? I.e Aries for Sparta and Athena for Athens
This is very interesting video in the context of Christianization of the Roman empire. The religion obviously appealed to the marginalized, women and slaves, but it appears that there was some appetite even among the elite for a more benevolent higher power to worship.
It was considered more logical sense Socrates, the founder of western philosophy, that a single perfect god made this world then the natural causes preached during his time. It was the stoics, the one Rome loved more then anything, that wrote the first major case for a single powerful deity creating the world and it was Cicero, himself an academic skeptic who in one of his books agreed with the stoics over the epicurians, that would be seen as the greatest philosopher of Rome and the one which brought many of christanityies greatest thinkers to philosophy and then to religion. That is to say, yeah, the rich liked the idea.
Problem with that is that Christians don't believe in a benevolent all powerful god. They believe that there are certain things which don't make sense for their god to be able to do, so they believe in a meaningless omnipotence.
@Zekun they do believe in all all powerful and just judge. They believe in a god only capable of punishing evil, which is the absence of good. It's not a meaningless omniscience. It's perfection they believe in. The Christian god does not destroy cities blindly. He waits 400 years for them to change, and still, he leaves their descendants alive to live among their conquerors. Your claim of meaningless omnipotence because they believe God will not do certain things only works if "true" omnipotence = amorality. As it has always been believed, wisdom = virtue, so you are going to have to argue that a truly omnipotent being would be amoral.
Christianity comes came more of Hellenized forms of Judaism. The first Christians tended to be Hellenized Jews. Chrisitan thought is laced with Greek philosophy. The opening line of the gospel of John talks about the Logos, a Greek philosophy concept.
@Ash it's less they were influenced by it then used its language, christanity had the foundational concepts already in Judaism but if 8t wanted to spread, it needed to be able to speak the language of what was around. That is also because the philosophers who converted to Christianity liked to discuss Greek concepts and push christanity as the answer to them, such as with logos. We also see Christian philosophers being influenced by Cicero, it was not just Greek philosoohy that influenced christian philosophy.
It's kind of cool seeing Saturn Devouring His Son in the video, then looking up to the wall behind my TV which has a framed print of that painting hanging on it.
Hey, do you happen to know an English teacher from Indiana? I asked her this question and she was stumped. The next day she said she spoke to a guy who wrote a book on exactly this, though I forgot the title and author she mentioned.
So the ignorant masses believed their religous stories to have happened in the literal sense, while the more intellectual members of their society considered them as allegories, misinterpretations or downright works of fictions. Interesting how some things never change.
I am personally working with that idea and a bit more. I am finding that 'The Hero's Journey' or 'Monomyth' is the framework and the stories are analogous forms of carrying that one template. It's verbal puzzles but, they play out in the psyche when one resolves it. It's a self healing path that I believe I am finding. I need help. It's too much material. Genesis is based on it too. I can show that one.
The development of belief is interesting among the educated, the move from literal belief toward something abstracted as time goes on. Seems to be a repeated phenomenon
The thing about them believing people before them were taller and stronger isn’t really very unfounded. Hunter gatherer humans actually regularly got to 6ft or a little taller due to their diet of mostly game meat. When we switched to agriculture we got the benefit of stability but if a persons diet is mostly bread and grains, they will be much shorter and just generally in poorer health. And now in modern times we’ve gotten back to people reaching 6ft because of more readily available protein.
That's one of very interesting parts of ancient indo-European religions it was excepted by all orders of opinion. There were secular and Atheist interpretations of the myths as well as a religious one as well. There were members of the intellectuals class in Athens who joked that lighting is just cosmic digestion and regular people that had a more literal interpretation.
Well atheistic interpretation is a stretch. People thst had those interpretations were often called out on it. Heck, one of the many reasons Athens, the most philosophical of all cities, by their own words of courses wanted him dead was his referring to a single god and starting that tradition that would continue into stoicism before coming full circle and finding its way into Plantonism deepening on what the academia as feeling that century.
Δαιμον- demon in ancient greek means a god, not a demon as we know it today. During the Middle ages the meaning of the word was changed to something bad and scary, because the Christianity couldn't allow the existence of more than one god, so everything that was considered godly in the Ancient times, in the Middle ages was either replaced with the Christian understanding of godly or totally forbidden as some heretic beliefs.
If you dug up a big bone youd assume it was like every other bone just really big. Thinking it came from an extinct giant isnt far fetched considering they really did come from extinct giants (that werent humanoid).
why did you attribute a karl marx quote to aristotle? It was very confusing and I felt like if i had a trip. Aristotle was a critic of religion in the line of socrates but believed that its institutions were beneficial and its practice aesthetically pleasing.
@@AsiandOOd shit was already popularized. This dudes book is junk pop history. The most surface level presentation that gives incorrect impressions on what life was like then.
I'd disagree with one point, one that Neoplatonism saw the gods as demons. Neoplatonism was adopted by many traditions but Plotinus himself was a pagan. He saw the gods basically as Platonic Forms but that they came from a Demiurge who himself came from the Monad.
I would think it's kind of like Creationism. Some of the poorly educated Greeks probably believed it literally, while others understood them as metaphor.
I think it's funny that people would question this considering we believe in just as obsurd myths in our own modern day religions. People like to draw a line between modern and past religions as if they're really that different, but they're literally the same thing. One's just hit its expiration date before the other.
Literally so wrong. Modern religions have fundamentally diffrent principals and have lasted far longer in terms of proofs because they can actually be argued for, compared to the Greek myths which dies off because none of the philosophers could refute anything and even had corroborated stories these new religions were covering. Especially given how modern religions are tied back to a single founder who often does show up in the history books seperste from their texts, these being Buddhism, Sikhism, Islam and christanity. They also all have actual philosophers defending them and their legitimacy, far more so them ancient religions ever did.
@@Aceshot-uu7yx The founding rock of Islam is literally that some guy claimed that in a cave with no other witnesses an angel visited him. What you are saying is nonsense. Also people fought and debated religion in the ancient world all the time, where did you get that idea?
@Zawrator I know people debated riligion in the ancient world. What I am saying is modern religions are usually based on more evidence, all you use the example of muhammud, a single example, to refute all modern religions, which is just cherry picking on your part.
@@zawrator4457 also what I meant by argument is stories about Buddha, Jesus, the gurus, and the rest had historical records outside of the religious texts that were used as a linch pin of proof in debates with the older faiths, something they did not have at all.
@Zawrator ancient philosophers more often tended to deny the myths outright or nake them allegories rather then actually defend their legitimacy. Saying Hercules was a real person and saying he is an allegory are two diffrent things.
I don't have to be an expert on mythology or history to tell you that a culture who is willing to build a ton of massive stone temples to all the various gods probably believes that doing that is going to bring favor from said gods.
But but the redditors say religion ONLY exists for control of a population!! 🙄
Preech
Yep! Did my thesis on a Classical religion topic. Although to the modern mind it's still very mysterious. They were totally free of Naturalism.
Or the elite does this as a populism to win the plebs votes and trust. Since most of them probably didn’t think much.
@Nikola Kolchakov well yeah some did, but we can see via cicero's letters that members of the rich did believe in the gods, such as his wife. We also see via Pompeii grafiti that likely richer people did also believe in the gods, such as the graffiti invoking a curse and claiming someone slept with Venus. plus having the people's tax money spent on what they want is usually a good thing, especially if the representatives don't agree with it, showing they still do what the people want.
I had a history professor straight up say "lol, the ancient Greeks and Roman sailors didn't believe any of the old sea stories that got turned into myth", and I was like "dude, we have people nowadays that believe in bigfoot and UFO's, do you really think ancient people were somehow more rational?" I think secular intellectuals are sometimes so up their own ass that they don't realize how natural believing crazy stories is.
Most shitty university professors aren’t they type to go out and interact with people different from them in the first place.
Like the crazy story of Noe gathering two of each animal on a boat...
@@waldemarsikorski4759 it is certain that it happened, but not exactly with a Hebrew named *Noah and an ark full of animals.
"The land is inundated, many people drown, but 1 rural family builds a ship and survives along with its livestock".
Doesn't sound that crazy anymore.
The biblical flood of Genesis has happened, it just wasn't global. The Levant was mostly affected.
The Trojan war is also no longer a myth, as archaeological evidence points to its destruction. The heroes of that war might have existed in some way too, but their names were later assigned to them by Homer or someone before him.
@@Michael_the_Drunkard But you can point to smaller things, like Cyclops and Dragons and Krakens and so forth. Sure, we can identify this with that, but the fact remains that people genuinely believed in monsters - not something that they merely misidentified, but actual monsters. There's a big difference between "I believe in bigfoot" and "I believe in a bear in the woods that I will call bigfoot".
I think whenever somebody talks about what the Greeks or Romans believed, it should be tacitly accepted that they're referring mainly to the elite and intellectuals of Greek and Roman society. Of course the peasants and slaves were uneducated and superstitious, and they could and would believe anything, but the elites mostly just used religion as a civic instrument to more efficiently rule, while the intellectuals definitely treated the heroes and gods with a kind of Voltairean irreverence. Central to Plato's metaphysics is a single god, and not Zeus, Hades or Heracles, and few of the ancient philosophers ever mentioned the traditional gods at all.
I always thought that what we call Greek and Roman myths were their religion. Most of them believed them as many if not most of us believe in our religions. Like with us, some believed every word, others regarded them as life lessons based on some "real" story hundreds of years before.
The Romans assimilated the culture and the religions of those they conquered. It was a good way to get those conquered into compliance. The absorption of Christianity by the Roman church is a good example.
@@alanfbrookes9771 That was what most Mediterranean cultures did, really. It was touched on briefly in the video, but with every different settlement and city-state having their own gods, when another settlement was captured, the gods were captured as well. So, for example, as Sparta conquered the Peleponnese, they would also conquer the gods of the other city states. Sparta winning a war meant that the Spartan Athena was stronger than the loser's Athena, Spartan Ares was stronger than the loser's Ares, so on and so forth.
@@alanfbrookes9771 it was not assimilation but influence. There was no roman government or ruling cohort saying “oh the greeks seem to have some nice myths lets assimilate them.” That misconception is dumb af, starting from the fact that both the greeks and the romans are indoeuropean cultures who had interacted with one another since the bronze age, so it obviously makes sense that they have similar myths and religious elements. You dont see people saying that the scandinavians “assimilated” germanic myths because Odin is the germanic Woden. Cultures with proximity influence each other and adopt religious practices that have similarities given their geographic needs. Assimilation may have occurred in some sections of the population with cults and travel of ideas but never a whole culture being “copied” lmao
Source ? (None) why did you bother watching the video
@@scottphillips3008
I said "I always thought..." in otherwords it was my opinion, not objective fact.
"You have unfortunate ancestry."
"If you think it's unfortunate to be descendent from the Gods."
"Now which God is that?"
"The Julia descendent from Aeneas, who was..."
"The son of Venus, yes yes. I recall Marius making such claims. There are many people these days who claim to be descendents from the Gods."
"We have a crest which proves it"
"I believe you can have them fashioned in the market place for a couple of dinars..."
*Argument between dictator Sulla and 18 year-old Julius Caesar*
Is that an actual recorded dialogue ?
what drugs are you on
Lmao
Ww2#@№#№@#@##№
@@caiawlodarski5339 No. But I've seen the movie
BROKE: The myths really happened
WOKE: The myths are allegories for the actions of the gods, beings beyond our true understanding and who may indeed be but aspects of a greater ideal being from which all things come forth
BESPOKE: The myths really happened and Kratos is why they're not around anymore
Dang Kratos!
BESPOKE P.S. For those ancient enough to remember, Xena murdered all of world mythology first, and she's even somehow also Jesus, like Kratos still seems prophesied to become.
So the original plot of God of War III where Kratos killed zues at the start and other pantheons invade Greece so Kratos teams up with the God of War from different myths and eradicated mythology in the world and became the three wise men that will give gifts to Jesus
@@bigpig2709 大豚
Well considering the sun and moon are still acting normally and the world isn't in complete chaos like the ending of GoW 3, I'd say that last one is complete fiction.
Go Woke Go Broke
Lucian is great. His Dialogues of the Gods include such gems as "Heracles and Asclepius arguing like children about who gets to sit where" or "Hera and Leto snarking each other passive aggressively about their weird kids".
Lucian is chad
I have always loved him since I read The Hall. In it, there's a bit where a character is arguing about how sight is the most crucial element to someone liking something, and gives a few examples of two things, and how people usually prefer the visually pleasing one over the other. However one of his points really stood out to me, as he claims that the Sirens are far worse as seducing men than the Gorgon/Medusa was. He points out how the Siren's alluring song will fade from the victim with time and they will return to normal, but the Gorgon on the other hand, didn't merely turn people to stone with their gaze, but that their beauty, "irresistible in might, won it's way to the inmost soul", and would make the person freeze up to such a degree that the legends claim he'd turned to stone.
That he chose, of all things, to include what is effectively "The Gorgon is way hotter than the Sirens" as a talking point in the text was absolutely hilarious. Even if it's satirical, it still suggests that the people of his time were comfortable enough with the idea of "waifu-izing" monsters from legend, not unlike what the anime fandoms do online nowadays, that making a claim like this was acceptable. I especially loved the specific wording of "admiration(or so the legend goes) turned him to stone" makes me can't help but think on some level he did personally hold that "hot take" opinion, and was using the character to sneak it out into public. 1900 years ago, and men still thought with their genitals to the point that even the Gorgon, the horrifying creature slain by Perseus, was fair game "cuz she's damn pretty".
The man seriously had a talent with writing, I can only imagine what sorts of phenomenal works he'd be able to make if he lived in the modern day, and could mock and satirize modern context.
@Late0NightPC
"Medusa was hotter than Mermaids" and "weebs have existed everywhere throughout history" are not takes I was expecting to adopt today but here we are.
He also wrote what could be considered the first science-fiction book (A True Story).
Lol yeah. After looking into various legends, you'd be shocked at how often there are stories of someone willingly going after/admiring a being they know to likely kill them on sight. While modern anime fandoms certain have let the idea spread way more, it does seem that "man will always want monster girl GFs" is certainly not a new development.
I remember reading that a piece of graffiti in Pompeii reads 'If anyone does not believe in Aphrodite, know that I married her today' or something to that effect. This was interesting to me since it implied that there were people who didn't believe Aphrodite existed - so at least some of the poorer people of Roman times were atheistic. I imagine it's a lot like today: most people believed, a few didn't, and Saturnalia didn't need to be religious because everyone loves their Christmas analogue.
more likely just a man boasting about his wife
@@RayTC That doesn't refute OP's comment tho
@@wiffgunderwanted and?
@@RayTC I wonder if it could be akin to saying "To those that don't believe in love"
@@RayTC Yeah, he's not saying he LITERALLY married Aphrodite. But just the use of the phrase 'if anyone does not believe in Aphrodite' implies that at least some people didn't - that it wasn't taken as an absolute given the Gods were real.
In his book, Marcus Aurelius even questions the existence of the gods. Later he says "of course we all know the gods exist", but i found it really interesting how he put it into question first.
He also has a quote if gods exist or not to live moral. Who is to say God doesn’t exist now?
@Scott Alleman I've always wondered which god Epicurus meant to critique, he lived in 300 BC so christianity didn't exist yet, and I don't think greek gods were believed to be omnipotent nor benevolent, though the latter is debatable.
@@santiagoo.8958 That's a fascinating point!
@@AM-vn4cc no. There was always the one or another guy who questioned it. You make it sound like it was just an usual thing for anyone like today and that is not true.
So the ones who did can of course be considered special. Not only because, as in your example, their stories often don't end well.
@@santiagoo.8958 In pre-christianity texts from antiquity i have found quite a few examples where someone talks about "god" without any further explanaition. I don't know what that means but it is interesting
You always manage to ask the most niche and interesting questions when it comes to such a seemingly well known period of history!
Keep up the great work!
Regarding gods as mere forces of nature was actually seen as atheistic by ancient Greeks
*People in ancient pre-Christian cultures generally did not tend to think of deities as personifications of natural phenomena; instead, they most often thought of deities as supernatural beings who could be appealed to for aid in certain situations. As we shall see in moment, the idea that deities were personifications of natural phenomena did exist in ancient times, but it was an idea that circulated mainly in philosophical circles and was not at all popular with the masses.*
*Starting in around the late fifth century BC, some radical thinkers and intellectuals began to consider the possibility that the deities might be personifications of the things with which they were associated. For instance, the Sophist Prodikos of Keos.*
*Thinkers like Prodikos, however, were far outside the realm of mainstream Greek religious thought. Indeed, on account of his arguments, Prodikos was widely accused of being an ἄθεος (átheos).*
*The Athenian comic playwright Aristophanes (lived c. 446 - c. 386 BC) ruthlessly mocked the idea of deities as personifications of natural phenomena in his comedy The Clouds, which was originally performed at the City Dionysia in Athens in 423 BC. In this play, Aristophanes portrays the philosopher Socrates as teaching that Zeus has been replaced by “the Whirlwind.”*
What are you quoting here?
Those who believed in their Gods did not consider them supernatural, but part of the everyday world of Nature. That's what made them real and not allegorical, metaphorical or outside the realm of the world they too inhabited.
@@craigbhill
Your understanding of "metaphoric" as applied to deities is modern and anachronistic
The personifications of natural phenomena reeks of cults, BTW... You know, like sun-worshipers gathering around a guru to smoke weed and have an orgy. Seeing by the Bible, Jews very clearly considered people who worship nature as primitive kooks, but associated that with paganism. Interesting to see that polytheists also found the weirdos worshiping actual winds and rains as heretics lmao.
@bastiat source:
I remember the poignant scene in the movie "Spartacus" where the naive slave girl explains to Spartacus how the wind god Aeolus is usually shut up in a cave but is allowed out at times to exercise and sometimes wreak havoc on the earth.Spartacus himself didn't seem to be very convinced by the story!
Isn't he let out by another god, whenever a third god asks?
Well he was a slave that was stolen from a different land; so he could have had different gods.
@@Jays6926 I think Spartacus was from Thrace which is today's European Turkey and southern Bulgaria -just north of Greece -their gods were very similar to Greek and Roman ones and actually some myths like that of Orpheus was derived from there and I think Spartacus was descended from Roman colonists anyway.Pagan religions are not like the Bible religions as pagans recognize all gods even foreign ones and integrate them into their own beliefs.
@@kaloarepo288 well that's the definition of polytheism - believing there are many gods, and monotheism - believing there is only one God. Abrahamic faiths don't just refuse to accept other religions, they openly deny these multiple gods existing at all, and that the idols that pagans worship are just wood and rocks, and not any deities made artificially.
@@KasumiRINA Or they say that the pagan gods are demons and devils with demonic powers.
I think it’s important to highlight how meaningful religious stories often are as well. Sure there are silly ones, but most have several layers of meaning in a way that the books we read nowadays and the movies we watch rarely have. The way stories were passed down back then made them as relevant to life and the world as they could be.
myths are as high-context as any sort of media can be. Borges referred to as poetry as 'describing what is.' Myths were passed down orally, as poetry. They were describing things as they were, filled with meaning yet as direct as possible. Like, look at the celtic bards.
Interesting as always!
Topic idea for a future video - CURSES. I know lots of curses have been found asking so-and-so to do such-and-such to a certain someone.
Lucian sounds hilarious - trolling the gods before it was cool. "pulling off the low rise jeans" is also some next level captioning 😂kudos!
He’s great. Lucian has two main satirical targets: philosophers and deities and when he combines the topics it’s hilarious
Please start a demon drawing reviews channel
Come to think of it, that would also make a great livestream topic
That was the best part lol
This ^^^^^^
That’s Antichrist
I just finished touring a temple to Minerva and there most definitely was not only a priest but also a haruspex and altars to give sacrifices. So they most definitely had priests running temples. Not to mention, there’s also the vestal virgins. There were curse tablets found all over invoking the gods’ powers to smite enemies.
Also, wasn’t the term “opiate of the masses” first attributed to Marx? I’ve never heard of Aristotle saying that.
I think he just said there was no main organization of priests, not that there were local priests for local temples.
Also, I think he just put in the "opiate of the masses" quote to be clever, I don't think Aristotle ever said it
This video was awesome. I also highly recommend the Secret History of Western Esotericism Podcast. The host covers a wide variety of topics ranging from the Chaldean oracles to Philo and Apuleius to Zosimos of Panopolis.
i was wondering about this exact question yesterday or the day before. impeccable timing mr stone
Very useful! Thank you for the exposition. Much appreciated toldinstone.
part of it is because it’s hard not to project our own understandings of things onto the past. you can’t get outside your own head and view the world as another person, so a lot of people tacitly project themselves onto the past and see secularism where there was none. a good example is greek plays, which many critics held for years to be atheistic in some way, like those of euripides. we now know he was fairly devout in his day to day life, so the meanings we see in the text probably weren’t the meanings he wished to convey
It is difficult for modern people to imagine HOW fatalistic the ancients were. Because of this, the meaning of almost all art is greatly distorted.
The descriptions of those demons were very helpful
Excellent! I just bought your book from Audible, haven't had a chance to start it yet but I will.
I remember a history professor summing up Greek religious beliefs as follows: "The god(esse)s are assholes, but they're in charge, so you better abide by their rules." Honestly seems pretty accurate.
Nice to see that the Greeks were also plagued by intellectuals missing the point of the stories of their times. Mind you, it sounds like most of them at least had the sense to keep the myths, rather than torching them to rebuild humanity from scratch like modern demagogues have tried.
Thank you. Our ancestors preserved these stories for a reason.
9/10 for the funny descriptions of the photos and drawings.
There is a wonderful book by Paul Veyne titled exactly this: 'Did the Greeks Believe in Their Myths.' Any good study on the matter should probably reference and cite Veyne.
Plato didn't think that the myths were inherently subversive (since he himself presents a lot of original and traditional myths in his dialogues). He only was against misuse of myths since they exert very strong influence.
@@scottalleman4564 Plato was right about philosopher-kings though. Who would you choose to rule over you: very cautiosly selected smart people who were bred and raised to rule for the interests of the whole community or rather your typical modern politicians who use demagogy and rhetorics to stay in power at all cost and are only pawns for the greater administrative system?
@@MrWarenia To bad that the philosopher king idea is nonsense in real life, and people raised to rule will inevitably lack compassion and understanding of the community and their needs.
@@laurentiuvladutmanea3622 and your arguments are?
@@MrWarenia 😂😂😂 by What metric are these beucrats supposed to be competent?
@Scott's Precious Little Account as someone who is reading Republic currently and trying to get a deeper umderstanding of his works... from my understanding, we really dont know what he believed on this specific topic. Plato himself never said such a thing that we know of. His character Socrates (who is separate from the real Socrates) said this, but even this character wasnt certain of this idea/could have just been giving an argument and not something he believes. In Plato's writings, Socrates is very unsure of everything (hence the famous i know that i know nothing line) and this is shown in Republic several times through out. The character may have not even thought this "philosopher-king" was possible and this utopian society was only used as a tool to give possible answers that the book asks. It can be rather difficult to understand Plato's work correctly, as there are a lot of subtleties and sarcasm that could easily confuse us modern readers (he is over 2000 years old in a very different culture/society). There are even arguments to be had that the entirety of Republic is satire (though i dont know if it is a popular view). I am by no means an expert, but i think you are mistaken by stating as a fact that he believed this, and even more so mistaken in simply brushing off such a brilliant person
Gimme more of those papyrus doodles. That's the stuff.
Fantastic as always. Glad you highlighted the fact that classical religions had no creed to speak of. Ever since Bill Mahers "religilous" people have repeated this myth that ancient religions had a messiah myth identical to Christianity when they obviously didn't
The myths of Dionysus and Mithra are rather similar to that of Christ
@@InTheRhettRow how so?
You're confusing concepts. Mystery cults (most of them subsections of the ancient belief systems) had multiple innovations in common with early Christian cults: a defined canon, personal (rather than collective) salvation, a passion (suffering - my be death or something else), revelation as a way of understanding the heavens, and the notion of a mythical realm where the story's events actually happened, which would be revealed to those higher initiated (basically the ones literate enough to ask questions). That last one could erode leading to literalist interpretations, leaving the "mystery" to secondary aspects.
The ones that had that erosion take place quickly were the cults that were more derived, and then split off as independent religions, like Manichaenism and Christianity. Theoretically Wesir (Osiris) cult was heading that way, but it was prevented from deriving too much by the fact that the priesthood was too integrated with the rest of ancient Kemeticism, and had a financially convenient position under the status-quo.
Most importantly, these were cults that you bought into. They were not the traditional, background religious beliefs of the people. They got more popular and independent as time went on, thanks to urbanization at first. Beginning with the crisis of the 3rd century, it was desperation that propelled the more mystical philosophies to the forefront.
Okay, you got me, I have to hear the rest of the story, I'm buying the book!
"Congratulations, Alexander. King of the Macedonians, who would have guessed that?"
"Yeah. Not bad at all for a little bastard of Zeus..."
*Hephaestion and Alexander after the death of Philip II*
I have read some platonic dialogues and they seem like Socrates and Plato belived in the existence of the gods, but not in the myths about them(they even call out the poets as responsible for that).
That makes me think that what mattered for them was the rituals to the gods(accepting them as real), but whether if they believed in their stories was more like an open question, not necessarily endorced by the state (like The Divine Comedy, the Lost Paradise or Faust).
Those are pretty terrifying demons...
Much Love from the Philippines
That was super interesting, thanks for sharing.
I think it's also important to realize that we, right now, have so much more acces to technology, information and different cultures than our ancestors did.
Imagine looking out at a starry night and not having the faintest clue that they're gas explosions. Imagine looking at the sun (not too long, mind) and not knowing _why_ that thing is warm and moves. Yeah, you'll always have sceptics, but the power of myths is palpable. Take John Wick! That's kind of a modern myth that we could vaguely, maybe, consider to be real. Of course, we know it's a movie, but people still try to emulate the movie, making it a modern myth.
It’s warm and moves because it’s a big ball of fire. Think they figured that out. Jesus…
I'm pretty sure even animals knew the Sun was warm also that John Wick comparison is stupid, it's a movie, if you want an actual good example of myths use Bigfoot or Nessy
Might actually buy your book now
Very interesting, always wondered about this.
Those illustrations were straight fire!
Recently, I' ve finished reading the biographies of Ceaser and Augustus and I must say that it didn't appear as if the people of the time didn't believe in their own stories. Not all or all the way sure, but saying things such as: people regarded all of it as a simple fake story seems wrong. Maybe the problem is that the belief wasn't so rigid as you might assume from Abrahamic religions, but the power of cults, traditions and the importance of temples hints at a quite religious society. For Romans the whole concept of separating religious practices from government or just everyday life would seem strange.
Sometimes I think that us, modern people, don't realize how much the world has changed in regards of religious practices here in the west at least.
Furthermore, I think we should attack Carthage.
Here's a video idea: did most Romans have curly hair? All of the sculptures seem to have wavy or curly hair. Was that just a stylized interpretation of hair? Or is it a fact that all (most) Romans had non-straiight hair?
Curly hair was exotic in rome and considered manly only by greece. Roman preferred shorter hair styles for men.
they have mixed moor, arab and berber ancestry, that is where the curls come from. Southern Europeans aren't the same as Northerners.
@@wiegraf9006 I think he's more refering to the fact that mycenean Greeks and most south Europeans populations have good chunk of EEF ancestry (who were mostly from Anatolia and middle east/near East regions). While the EEF ancestry is lower in Northern Europeans.
@@Volzotran if you see their faces they are most definitely European and not exotic looking.
@@kiq654 same with male appendages. Bigger ones meant a man was unruly and savage but smaller ones were more masculine and shown a man to be intelligent
Hi there sir. Your video has _two_ titles for me :o Above the video title you gave it, it has an extra title called “questions about Greek and Rome” and the title appears on both my home page and the video itself. Did you implement this yourself or is it something RUclips has placed on the video?? It’s really cool because it gives extra info to potential viewers in a different text which makes the video stand out and I was just wondering how you did it ^_^
Also excellent video thank you 🙏🏻
Hera: "YOU HAVE CHEATED ON ME AGAIN WITH ONE OF OUR CHILDREN, RIGHT? I'M GOING TO KILL YOU RIGHT HERE AND NOW"
Zeus: "I'm really sorry, honey. As the God of Law and Justice, I promise I won't do it again"
Hera: "Ohhh, I can't be mad at you if you talk to me like that, Zeusy. Just don't do that again, ok?" 😊
Zeus: "Okie, dokie!" 👌 *Proceeds to sleep with a human woman, this time the wife of macedonian king Philip II*
I mean, how else did Zeus get his cults in different lands than sleeping with their goddesses?
9/10 upvotes to this video, solely based on the scoring of demons
Paul Veyne, Did the Greeks Believe Their Myths, p. 18:
“Mythological space and time were secretly different from our own. A Greek put the gods ‘in heaven,’ but he would
have been astounded to see them in the sky. He would have been no less astounded if someone, using time in its literal sense, told him that
Hephaestus had just remarried or that Athena had aged a great deal lately. Then he would have realized that in his own eyes mythic time had only a vague analogy with daily temporality; he would also have thought that a kind of lethargy had always kept him from recognizing this difference. The analogy between these temporal worlds disguises their hidden plurality.”
I feel as though we’re looking at this two black and white. At one point the stories had to come from somewhere, and we can assume that the originators did believe. But like all traditions it evolved and can be split into religious and secular. Maybe some ancients viewed the myths literally and others metaphorically. We can go even further and say some rituals and symbology is still to practiced to this day with our holidays and pagan influences. We aren’t disconnected from our past, that’s what makes history so fun.
This is very fascinating particularly the view of the epicureans vs the Stoics.
Thank you for another great video. My library has a digital copy of your book (I am vision impaired) and I look forward to reading it.
I think it should generally be assumed we can’t actually know what the average common person thought about anything in a time so dominated by a ruling elite such as ancient greece and rome, only what those doing the writing would have wanted us to know
3:38 that's the most Reddit thing I have ever heard.
This whole comment section is a giant Reddit moment it’s driving me insane.
@@ProfessorShnacktime Oh well, deal with it.
the great comments on the drawn demons where the best part of the video for me
such a good video essay, answer the question i have always been wondering.
//Neither the Greeks nor the Romans ever developed a canon of sacred texts, caste of priests...//
They both used oracles who were the original "priesthood"
"Did they believe their myths?" Is like asking if we believe our myths. Depending on the person, place, culture and time people wax and wane from believing. As well everyone would have their own take or believe In part.
Good to hear that the philosophers were able to have a platonic relationship.
I suspect that Diogenes the Cynic would be surprised to find his name in a list of "Notable Epicureans". That's almost as surprising as Marcus Aurelius being omitted from a list of "Notable Stoics".
I was referring to Diogenes of Oenoanda. Not a notable philosopher, admittedly, but one of our best witnesses for Epicurean tenets.
Get out of my sun
I think this is the wrong question to ask. Most ancient Greek people didn't have a systematic theology. They had a local shrine or temple dedicated to one of the gods and they would worship and participate in sacrifice to that god.
Exactly. I think looking at modern Shinto practitioners would give a good idea as to what it was like. Partake in the rituals, know the myth, but every person has their own belief about the literal meaning, and most do it because it’s what their people do.
@@wiegraf9006 No of course not. I'm talking about what the every day practice for your average Greek peasant or farmer would look like. They may or may not have been aware of other gods, but they had a local temple that was dedicated to one specific god among the pantheon, they didn't worship all of them all the time.
Nah man they built all those temples for funsies.
"I thought I needed your weapons but what I needed was your wisdom and advice."
-Perseys.(not entirely accurate translation)
Which Lucian work had the philosopher prove to the gods their non existence? It sounds great, like the joke in hitchhikers guide to the galaxy (vanished in a puff of logic), but I can’t find any reference to something like that in Lucian’s works by googling
It’s usually translated “Zeus Tragoedus.” Definitely worth a read!
Great video man
I got your book on audio to keep me company at work one night, but the narrator butchers most of the pronunciations. You should make your own recording. Your lecturing voice is like butter.
The Greeks believed that the gods were the cosmogenic forces of nature and that they are the ONE (EN) divided. But not only of nature but of ourselves. This is very apparent to those who know the Greek language as it is the basis for decoding all the myths and the religion of greece. Myth = Μυθος = Μυω (induct) + Θειο (Holy, Godly, Heavenly) which means the myths were "tools" for the subtle induction of the masses to the higher ideas. And the formal induction into the mysteries by becoming able to decode them. For example Ares is the force of collision cosmically (War, Entropy) and the personification of Ανδρεια (Manliness) in ourselves. Zeus has 3 Names: Διας, Ζευς, Ζηνας (Dias, Zeus, Zinas) for he is the most powerfull force cosmically that which Divides (Διαιρει) and Unifies (Ζευγει) off of which comes Life (Ζηνας, Ζωη). Male and female are unified from which comes the (Ζυγωτης) union of sperm and ovary and then it Divides itself to become a living being. In ourselves Zeus is the Mind (Νοηση). All this and much more become apparent and obvious only if you know the greek language and from reading Plato who, through Socrates, explains all this in codes. So in reality foreign scientists cannot truly rely on translation because all the translations are wrong or misleading. Unfortunately those who dont know greek cannot read many books which explain all of these in detail
Damn, that's a good question! One whose answer I've idly wondered about probably hundreds of times over the years.
the word "literally" means expressed on literary terms such as books. Definitions are very important here. Once you get down to it its not so hard to define what reality, myths, and beliefs are.
Are you going to credit the author of an academic paper with the very same title by Paul Veyne?
You've basically summed up religious secularism for all of human history in one video, not just the ancient Greeks. In nearly every society on earth most people will identify with the popular religion in the area, yet only a small minority will truly believe it as fully factual and an important part of their daily lives. Modernity hasn't changed the fact most people are completely comfortable never pondering the nature of the divine.
People used to be more religious than they are now and that’s a fact.
@Wiegraf نَيس
I've seen others point this out and to me it not only makes sense, but should be rather obvious. Some random ancient Roman pleb was probably more concerned about his day to day struggles than the gods.
The average person was probably similar to many agnostics or "Christian-in-name-only" people today. People that might engage and have loose religious beliefs, but don't actually adhere to a creed.
And I say "Christian-in-name-only" because I've met too many people that self-proclaim as Christian, but don't know ANYTHING about Christianity. They do it because culture, not faith. Literally had a self-proclaimed "Christian" get confused when I asked "is Jesus your lord and savior?" He was like "uh... Well I believe in God." Yeah, you're not fucking Christian.
@Wiegraf This only applies to dogmatic monotheist religions who claim to know "the truth" and expect you to believe in it. Classic paganism or even Buddhism are vastly different from this approach.
@@LegioXXI Not even monotheistic religions does what that other commenter says. He/she is underestimating how people would destroy each other's beliefs even when it's just different interpretations of the same God. There is a long history of many sectors of Christians having ended up in crime just to prove their point against other Christians.
I don't necessarily see Sallustius "hastening to add" that the myths shouldn't be taken literally in the quote you provided around 5:00. Was there more to that quote? To me, it seems like he's describing the ideal formal qualities of myths, but that's not quite the same thing as saying their content is totally made up or not factually true. Are you reading that quote in context with some other writings (by him or his contemporaries) that bolster your point? Why do you say that he's referring to the literallness or factual accuracy of the myths in that quote?
I enjoyed the video, by the way. Definitely a fascinating and enlightening overview of the subject.
Good excerpt. I want the book now.
Love this channel.
These intellectual debates and perspectives regarding religions truth and mortal status don't seem dissimilar to those we discuss today.
Haven’t watched the video yet but I assume it was prolly a lot like nowadays where most ppl question the validity of the myths and some either didn’t believe or were forced to believe by the state. Human minds haven’t changed too much in a single century, there have always been ppl with questions. But also like religion nowadays a lot of ppl prolly just believed with blind faith.
2:35 gods being misremembered kings does kinda add up once you remember who Amenhotep was
Correct me if I’m wrong but weren’t the practice of calling to a specific god often tied to the belief the city? I.e Aries for Sparta and Athena for Athens
This is very interesting video in the context of Christianization of the Roman empire. The religion obviously appealed to the marginalized, women and slaves, but it appears that there was some appetite even among the elite for a more benevolent higher power to worship.
It was considered more logical sense Socrates, the founder of western philosophy, that a single perfect god made this world then the natural causes preached during his time. It was the stoics, the one Rome loved more then anything, that wrote the first major case for a single powerful deity creating the world and it was Cicero, himself an academic skeptic who in one of his books agreed with the stoics over the epicurians, that would be seen as the greatest philosopher of Rome and the one which brought many of christanityies greatest thinkers to philosophy and then to religion. That is to say, yeah, the rich liked the idea.
Problem with that is that Christians don't believe in a benevolent all powerful god. They believe that there are certain things which don't make sense for their god to be able to do, so they believe in a meaningless omnipotence.
@Zekun they do believe in all all powerful and just judge. They believe in a god only capable of punishing evil, which is the absence of good. It's not a meaningless omniscience. It's perfection they believe in. The Christian god does not destroy cities blindly. He waits 400 years for them to change, and still, he leaves their descendants alive to live among their conquerors. Your claim of meaningless omnipotence because they believe God will not do certain things only works if "true" omnipotence = amorality. As it has always been believed, wisdom = virtue, so you are going to have to argue that a truly omnipotent being would be amoral.
Christianity comes came more of Hellenized forms of Judaism. The first Christians tended to be Hellenized Jews. Chrisitan thought is laced with Greek philosophy. The opening line of the gospel of John talks about the Logos, a Greek philosophy concept.
@Ash it's less they were influenced by it then used its language, christanity had the foundational concepts already in Judaism but if 8t wanted to spread, it needed to be able to speak the language of what was around. That is also because the philosophers who converted to Christianity liked to discuss Greek concepts and push christanity as the answer to them, such as with logos. We also see Christian philosophers being influenced by Cicero, it was not just Greek philosoohy that influenced christian philosophy.
It's kind of cool seeing Saturn Devouring His Son in the video, then looking up to the wall behind my TV which has a framed print of that painting hanging on it.
“To a good Greek a tree could become Zeus at anytime” not a direct quote but it’s Nietzsche in the essay “On Truth and Lies in a NonMoral Sense”
Holy s** I have no memory of ever even seeing this video let alone having posted this comment 😅
Hey, do you happen to know an English teacher from Indiana? I asked her this question and she was stumped. The next day she said she spoke to a guy who wrote a book on exactly this, though I forgot the title and author she mentioned.
So the ignorant masses believed their religous stories to have happened in the literal sense, while the more intellectual members of their society considered them as allegories, misinterpretations or downright works of fictions.
Interesting how some things never change.
I had an aunt that truly believed minotaurs existed
2:56 anyone know any stoic works (besides the ones mentioned in the video) that contain interpretations of the myths as allegories?
... Interested in this as well.
I am personally working with that idea and a bit more. I am finding that 'The Hero's Journey' or 'Monomyth' is the framework and the stories are analogous forms of carrying that one template. It's verbal puzzles but, they play out in the psyche when one resolves it. It's a self healing path that I believe I am finding. I need help. It's too much material. Genesis is based on it too. I can show that one.
Symposium, by Plato gives insight into that.
The development of belief is interesting among the educated, the move from literal belief toward something abstracted as time goes on. Seems to be a repeated phenomenon
Great video!
The thing about them believing people before them were taller and stronger isn’t really very unfounded. Hunter gatherer humans actually regularly got to 6ft or a little taller due to their diet of mostly game meat. When we switched to agriculture we got the benefit of stability but if a persons diet is mostly bread and grains, they will be much shorter and just generally in poorer health.
And now in modern times we’ve gotten back to people reaching 6ft because of more readily available protein.
That's one of very interesting parts of ancient indo-European religions it was excepted by all orders of opinion. There were secular and Atheist interpretations of the myths as well as a religious one as well. There were members of the intellectuals class in Athens who joked that lighting is just cosmic digestion and regular people that had a more literal interpretation.
Well atheistic interpretation is a stretch. People thst had those interpretations were often called out on it. Heck, one of the many reasons Athens, the most philosophical of all cities, by their own words of courses wanted him dead was his referring to a single god and starting that tradition that would continue into stoicism before coming full circle and finding its way into Plantonism deepening on what the academia as feeling that century.
Top tier demon ratings 👍
Fantastic work.
Δαιμον- demon in ancient greek means a god, not a demon as we know it today. During the Middle ages the meaning of the word was changed to something bad and scary, because the Christianity couldn't allow the existence of more than one god, so everything that was considered godly in the Ancient times, in the Middle ages was either replaced with the Christian understanding of godly or totally forbidden as some heretic beliefs.
Did the fossils of mammoths and wooly rhino bones etc. they came upon cause or simply reinforce their ideas about the gods/heroes ?
They literally just said damn look at those big bones
Augustus had a villa where he displayed "bones of giants".
If you dug up a big bone youd assume it was like every other bone just really big. Thinking it came from an extinct giant isnt far fetched considering they really did come from extinct giants (that werent humanoid).
Sounds like opinions in our modern world.
why did you attribute a karl marx quote to aristotle? It was very confusing and I felt like if i had a trip. Aristotle was a critic of religion in the line of socrates but believed that its institutions were beneficial and its practice aesthetically pleasing.
I was just alluding to the Marx quote, since it's so famous
@@toldinstone thanks for clarifying. big respect for your work in popularizing classical greco roman civilization.
@@AsiandOOd shit was already popularized. This dudes book is junk pop history. The most surface level presentation that gives incorrect impressions on what life was like then.
I'd disagree with one point, one that Neoplatonism saw the gods as demons. Neoplatonism was adopted by many traditions but Plotinus himself was a pagan. He saw the gods basically as Platonic Forms but that they came from a Demiurge who himself came from the Monad.
1:58 can somebody please tell me what the name of tha painting and its author are? It's very pretty
I would think it's kind of like Creationism. Some of the poorly educated Greeks probably believed it literally, while others understood them as metaphor.
I think it's funny that people would question this considering we believe in just as obsurd myths in our own modern day religions. People like to draw a line between modern and past religions as if they're really that different, but they're literally the same thing. One's just hit its expiration date before the other.
Literally so wrong. Modern religions have fundamentally diffrent principals and have lasted far longer in terms of proofs because they can actually be argued for, compared to the Greek myths which dies off because none of the philosophers could refute anything and even had corroborated stories these new religions were covering. Especially given how modern religions are tied back to a single founder who often does show up in the history books seperste from their texts, these being Buddhism, Sikhism, Islam and christanity. They also all have actual philosophers defending them and their legitimacy, far more so them ancient religions ever did.
@@Aceshot-uu7yx The founding rock of Islam is literally that some guy claimed that in a cave with no other witnesses an angel visited him. What you are saying is nonsense.
Also people fought and debated religion in the ancient world all the time, where did you get that idea?
@Zawrator I know people debated riligion in the ancient world. What I am saying is modern religions are usually based on more evidence, all you use the example of muhammud, a single example, to refute all modern religions, which is just cherry picking on your part.
@@zawrator4457 also what I meant by argument is stories about Buddha, Jesus, the gurus, and the rest had historical records outside of the religious texts that were used as a linch pin of proof in debates with the older faiths, something they did not have at all.
@Zawrator ancient philosophers more often tended to deny the myths outright or nake them allegories rather then actually defend their legitimacy. Saying Hercules was a real person and saying he is an allegory are two diffrent things.
It could be useful for the uninitiated to know the difference between demons and daemons. I have to assume the gods would be seen as the latter.
the ab workout tapes worked 🤣👏
Please start a series where you rate gods/demons/drawings from the past. Thank you o7
This demon is so bad it's rated Medieval cat / 10.
Found thid by accident, really nice channel
At the intersection of classical ancient history and ancient doodles of demons with Burger King crowns you will find Toldinstone.