Cultural Icons, Idols, Models, Symbols... etc, etc, as the Carrots We Keep Chasing

BrianW

[1.] Thousands of years ago...

Gods, angels, demons, spirits, elementals, etc, etc.

[2.] The past few centuries...

Heroes/Superheroes (and Villains), Gifted Individuals, Geniuses, Superstars, etc, etc.

Obviously there are differences and modifications but it all looks like the worship of certain ideals is something instinctive in us. For example, one of the biggest differences between thousands of years ago and a few centuries ago seems to be the use of psychology (or the common acceptance of how the mind/psyche functions). Therefore, nowadays we identify with these ideals/concepts differently than before. But they still have mass following, are more often than not indoctrinated when young and vulnerable; are more products of fancy than reality, etc. And, even those identities that have transversed the generations and years, they have constantly been modified into the modern versions of what they represent.

So, are they just ways in which we engage with various ideals and concepts which we try to incorporate into our lives?
Are our cultures designed to seek these ideals and concepts as targets and is that directive the motive force behind the progress of humanity?

unenlightened

The term 'archetype' is often misunderstood as meaning certain definite mythological images or motifs, but these are nothing more than conscious representations. Such variable representations cannot be inherited. The archetype is a tendency to form such representations of a motif—representations that can vary a great deal in detail without losing their basic pattern. — Jung

Archetype.

Thus the physical hero is the same archetype that might be called Heracles or Superman, or some other. The difficulty is to see from time to time what archetype one is enacting and giving new life to oneself - hero, villain, trickster, seeker, prophet, ...

Drazjan

I don't disagree with your premise, but the idea that such worship is an instinct contradicts the idea that it come from indoctrination. As for the progress of humanity, it may be planned for, however if Conrad is correct, it comes about in a fog.

BrianW

I don't disagree with your premise, but the idea that such worship is an instinct contradicts the idea that it come from indoctrination. As for the progress of humanity, it may be planned for, however if Conrad is correct, it comes about in a fog. — Drazjan

The worship isn't instinct, it is a practice. Characterisation of reality/life aspects, events, circumstances, etc, which leads to the generation of ideals, icons, archetypes, etc, etc, is what is instinctive (perhaps to our processes of consciousness). Worship (from its broadest sense) is just a means (possibly the simplest or earliest activated) of establishing those characters into the life patterns within our consciousness, a kind of qualification (cultivation). Indoctrination is merely an effective way to pass on the significance of such ideals, it isn't the cause.

BrianW

Thus the physical hero is the same archetype that might be called Heracles or Superman, or some other. The difficulty is to see from time to time what archetype one is enacting and giving new life to oneself - hero, villain, trickster, seeker, prophet, ... — unenlightened

I'm wondering why it happens, why do we do it? Is it in our nature, something inherent in humanity?

Drazjan

I think all you are going to get is opinions. Mine is that it is not inherent, but indoctrination and/or wishful thinking. Youth is more susceptible to such influence through natural naivety.

unenlightened

Is it in our nature, something inherent in humanity? — BrianW

Well I suspect it is analogous to the atomic structure of matter - that psyche, subjectivity, identity, whatever you call it, is made of archetypes.

At least, perhaps that's not quite right... If you take an eagle, or a fox, or any animal, they have an individuality and they have a species character, and they are seemingly integrated. A dog is always entirely dog, and entirely himself without conflict. Whereas humans do not know, but pretend to know, what human nature is or should be, and try to perform that - so that these archetypes are mere ideas, and humans live in ideas rather than reality. So one has endless arguments about what is or isn't a man, or a real man, or manly, instead of just assuming that what is manly is whatever men do. "Big boys don't cry therefore I must not cry." "Real men are white therefore you are not a real man." Real men are terrible conformists, and have to act all the time, and the archetypes are the second rate performances we give.

Tzeentch

I don't think the two are comparable. Ancient philosophy, religion and spirituality were, mostly, genuine attempts to understand reality. "Super hero/pop idol worship" has no such intentions, and, as far as I am concerned, does little good to the minds of our young.

BrianW

Whereas humans do not know, but pretend to know, what human nature is or should be, and try to perform that - so that these archetypes are mere ideas, and humans live in ideas rather than reality. So one has endless arguments about what is or isn't a man, or a real man, or manly, instead of just assuming that what is manly is whatever men do. — unenlightened

What if being human is not about definite knowledge but about working our way up the spectrum towards more knowledge about stuff. Therefore the endless arguments could just be part of the process.

BrianW

"Super hero/pop idol worship" has no such intentions, and, as far as I am concerned, does little good to the minds of our young. — Tzeentch

From my perspective, in this modern society where criticism is conflated by cynicism, I think holding up superhero/hero ideals is more genuine than most people care to admit. Basically, there is a belief in 'fighting the good fight' in such a culture.

Cultural Icons, Idols, Models, Symbols... etc, etc, as the Carrots We Keep Chasing

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions