Isles of Scion

I apologize in advance for any historical bloopers, after you’ve been writing about Greek characters for long enough your brain starts to mix up who killed who and what happened to whom. It should be relatively accurate. I blame the muses for any mistakes I made.

—————–

The Trojan war is, much like the wars of modern day, one that had begun long before the first sword met with shield. It is difficult at best to pick any few figures and compare them merely to one another, but because of necessity I will attempt to speak largely on the roles of Heracles, Hector, and Xanthus. However they will be accompanied by the historical stepping stones of Paris, Priam, Laomedon, Ajax, Helen, Menelaus, Pandarus, and Patrocalus—as well as likely a ballroom’s worth of deities and a sand castle or two.

The entirety of the Trojan war is one of inevitabilities, whenever questioned by those who love them it seems apparent that many know of their fates. We begin first with a figure who’s tools play a strong part in the war but in themselves do not, that of Zeus’s famous son, Heracles. While he never directly meets Paris, Heracles does have an effect on his family life in at least two ways, firstly it is Heracles who kills Laomedon the father of Priam, who consequently is the father of Paris. It is also by his own bow and arrows, handed down to Philoctetes, that Paris himself will find himself poisoned and inevitably dead, having died from a poison that could of easily been cured by that of Oenone the beautiful nymph he originally was attached to. Albeit had he never left her; the events leading to his poisoning would of never happened so I suppose his punishment is two fold.

However it would not be Heracles who is gifted with the tightly woven events that flow throughout the war. Hector also would find that nothing around him happened without an apparent later purpose. Hector himself does not gleefully enter into the war between the Greeks and the Trojans, his brother Paris had been the apparent single cause of the war and was also seemingly unwilling to get involved physically into said war. Even after Paris and Menelaus attempted to settle the situation civilly, or at least the Greek version of civil, by having a duel they found themselves being abruptly interrupted by two parties. One to be named later, and the other being Pandarus, who fires upon Menelaus and much like a gang war in modern times it is a single shot unto the opposing party that leads to full scale war. Hector himself seems to be one of the few who actually wishes to settle the war in a manner of chivalric tone, he uses the knowledge that he is not yet cited for death to gather both sides and challenge anyone of the Greeks to a battle, it would be Ajax who finally rises to the occasion and after a mighty feud that ends with both parties calling a draw they decide to congratulate one another. Ajax gives to Hector his girdle, and Hector gives to Ajax his sword. These tokens of peace are seemingly condemned to lose their shimmer.

Achilles much like Hector was intertwined with his combatant, in this case also being Hector. The two are destined to meet and like nearly every other hero they shall not be given the opportunity to settle their conflicts without the interference of the deities. When Apollo came to the aid of Hector after Ajax felled him with a Stone, he unwittingly (or perhaps wittingly) brought on the truth of this battle, no good deed of god would be left unpunished by a harmful deed of a rival god. Somewhere around this time Patrocalus enters the battle looking as if he is Achilles. It feels painfully instigated by the gods as it is known that his death would bring upon the rage of Achilles (and certainly of his horses Xanthus and Barius), Hector fells Patrocalus and thusly turns the cogs that will be his own undoing and in that the undoing of the entire people’s of Troy. When Hector places the armor of Achilles upon his person he is setting in motion the final pieces, as this is a direct insult to Zeus and being such the only neutral lord in this scuffle he has thusly lost the only possibility of reason amongst the unreasonable war of the gods.

Hephaestus plays his part well as he dons Achilles in a new set of armor, the enraged godlike man making his way to battle. The chase of Hector around the city was to me a symbol of the cities undoing, like unwinding the thread of life Hector stretched his line thin. It would be by the trickery of Athena that he would stop and Achilles would cut his thread. This act of rage being doubled over by that of his treatment of the corpse. It would be by the very girdle that Ajax had given Hector that he would be drug lifelessly just as his sword had been the sword that felled the mighty Ajax (by Ajax’s own doing). The unbridled fury of Achilles personifying the battle of the gods and in that sense the moment that Achilles turned his back upon Athena for the blessings of Ares. Retreating from a thoughtful warrior to a bloodthirsty barbarian, or from a noble Greek to a treacherous Trojan.

As was stated Xanthus plays a large part in this story as well, without his immortal power (and the aid of Barius) the dragging of Hectors corpse would have been one of embarrassing visage. One can almost visualize Achilles running around dragging the corpse behind him as some sort of cryptic brides train. Xanthus loved Patrocalus who had treated and groomed him well, so it would be not only Achilles that is given a heartfelt blow at the death of Patrocalus. Xanthus pulled along Achilles through the Trojans and helped march all of them back into Troy, for the exception of the killer of his close friend—Hector. There would be no forgiveness by horse or man after Hector died and Xanthus would only halt his pull when the gods themselves intervened (unable to witness the sacrilege of the corpse any longer).

Which brings us to the gods. As I read more and more about these deities I began to notice something unusual. The tales of these heroes tied in well, too well, it appeared that while not omniscient in their own right the gods knew likely what would happen when certain acts were carried out. Let us begin with the wedding, Zeus has been informed by Prometheus that there is someone out in the world that if he breeds with them will birth a child so powerful it shall overthrow him as he did Kronos, and Kronos did Ouranous. Zeus being the sly fox that he is (at times) decided, after being informed of the woman, that he would wed her to someone so that he could keep it in his pants. That woman was Thetis and that suitor was Peleus. All the gods were invited to the wedding except for one, Eris the goddess of Discord, I postulate that Zeus decided not to invite her because he knew what she would likely do if she wasn’t invited. Be it through his ties to his son Apollo, or through Prometheus, or even just the simple fact that she was Eris. He knew that she would cause a scuffle of some kind. Poseidon being a powerful lord, pro-Greek, and brother of Zeus gave the horses Xanthus and Barius to Peleus as a wedding gift, likely knowing that they would be someday used by Achilles their son. When Eris entered the apple of discord into the fray and Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite began to scuffle Zeus took the apple not only to halt the breaking of the festivities but likely because he knew of the power it had. Prometheus had foiled his previous plans to destroy the humans to start anew and it appeared now that he could use the very people to do the deed for him. Once he had the apple I postulate that it was not Paris chosen at random or by cause of his free lifestyle but because Zeus realized that Paris had a libido that rivaled his. He knew that Paris would choose Aphrodite and that the idea of the best sex in the world would far outweigh anything Hera and Athena could offer him. Aphrodite being the only of the three who desired the Trojans over the Greeks left Zeus with a cocktail for destruction. Looking back a bit was it the desire of Eurystheus to have Heracles gain the poison of the Hydra in his trials or was it a suggestion from the gods knowing that Heracles would succeed and that his very arrow would fell Paris himself. Hera was in herself pro-Greek and it would seem logical of a woman of her caliber to use the rage she is feeling at that moment to help aid in the future endeavors that she could foresee. Forwarding back when Paris had to choose between the three goddesses, he was unwittingly choosing which side of the war would win. The Greeks if he chose passion and Aphrodite, or the Trojans if he never met and stole Helen.

Once the war had begun it was very noticeable which side the gods were on. When Ajax and Hector battled their gifts to one another would be the tools of their inevitable destruction, the sword of Ajax may have been given because of a whispering voice who knew that Ajax would attempt to fell the Greek generals, likewise the girdle given to Hector is likely a godly whisper knowing that his corpse will be dragged by it. Pandarus the apply named archer who would unroll the chaos, much like the Female Pandora who had brought about the downfall of mans’ peace in the past, seemed to have been named at birth for his eventual part in the dance that was the Trojan war. When the girdle was given to Hector, the next part in the godly plot was to bring Achilles into the fray. It would be by the death of Patrocalus, friend of both Xanthus and Achilles, that they would begin the rolling of the ball. When Hector began his flight about the walls of Troy it would be by the trickery and hand of Athena that he would not only stop but be felled by the spear she returned to Achilles, he would then take the girdle given to Hector and drag him behind the chariot that was pulled by Xanthus and Barius. Once the gods found that there was going to be no end to Achilles and his rage filled desecration they commanded that he ransom the body back to King Priam of Troy. It feels to me at this time Athena has given up on her warrior, who has seemingly betrayed her and her thoughtful ways for the treacherous ways of Troy and the rage of Ares. It would then be by the guidance of Apollo, a supporter of troy, and the arrow of Paris that Achilles himself is felled. Perhaps Apollo knowing that Ajax, the keeper of Hectors sword, would lose out to Odysseus over the armor of Achilles and would likely use the sword to fell the Greek Generals thus ending the war in victory for Troy.

However Athena the crafty woman that she is causes Ajax to go insane and execute not Greek generals but some farm animals and in his embarrassment he fells himself on the very sword he was given by Hector. It would be by the poisoned arrow of Philoctetes, the only friend of Heracles willing to end his woes, that Paris would be felled. The snake that bit Philoctetes may of even been that of Zeus or some other god keeping him away from the Trojan war, for he might of died too soon and his arrow not flown true into the ankle of Paris.

To me it seems that the entirety of the Trojan war was a plot by the gods first and foremost, from the very beginning to the bitter end. Much like a modern ballet, the dancers coordinate not in a fashion of lines and rows but in a chaotic pool of motions that while somewhat by chance never fall out of line or clash into one another. The gods did not know with certainty exactly how the fight would play out, but they knew the likely end to each of their actions. A chess game of wits between beings of immense power who unfortunately had temperaments that matched those of mere mortals. I believe the fates themselves would have been jealous of the intricacies of the weave that all the Olympian gods had made during that decade long war—and in fact the cascade of events leading up to it.

I as much as anyone enjoy arguing with myself. Because of the inherent flaw in it, by arguing with myself I know every thought my opponent will think and in kind can prepare a counter for the retorts I’ll receive. However in doing so I neither win nor lose, I find myself in the midst of a void of nothingness that explains as much as it contains.

Stephen Nichols’s comments on Moral Relativism proves that I’m not the only one that can argue with myself and reveal nothing. There is no such thing as universal truth. Nichols’s argues that this statement negates itself. I however see it differently. To say that there is no such thing as a universal truth, makes the statement universal, making it no longer universal, thus supporting the statement. It becomes its own cage. Years ago I personally decided upon one law of understanding reality. Every rule has but one exception. The genius of it is that it in fact explains everything, however likewise it explains nothing. What is the exception to the rule itself? Does it have no exception, many, or just more than one? This unknown gives me a goal in life, something to strive for, to understand what is the exception to every aspect of life.

The reason Moral Relativism exists as a concept is that you cannot create objective laws from subjective beings. Anyone who says they are objective is in themselves making a subjective statement about themselves in relation to those around them. It is much akin to trying to make fruit from wax, it’ll look like fruit, with the right fragrance it’ll smell like fruit, but in the end it is just a waxy illusion. We cannot judge others objectively and thusly Moral Relativism exists.

To say that something is wrong because it does not explain everything is foolish. If something explains everything it in turn explains nothing. Anything omniscient, omnipotent, or omni* finds itself being inherently useless. It has no reason to be, it has no message to give, and it inevitably becomes paradox that causes many a migraine to any thinking being who tries to make reason of or about it. I think the mistake is in the chronology of your concept. It is not the laws that creates the utopia, it is the utopia that thusly manifests the laws. A world where all of its inhabitants strive for pleasure of both themselves and of others is a world where laws are not necessary, they lie within the pages of history as infinitives that develop from their surroundings. To judge someone on their actions is silly if without context of their environment.

I say you first fix the environment, in a world full of pleasure and opportunity you will be hard pressed to find the seeds of destruction. There will merely be patches of the old dying off in the garden of the new.

Note: This article was written in response to the article found here.