Jump to content

Talk:Eris (mythology)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Amphilogiai)

Eris of Zeus and Hera?

[edit]

This article states that "the other strife" is "probably" daughter of Zeus and Hera. Is Carlos Parada the only source for this claim? I'm having difficulty getting the referenced "Genealogical Guide to Greek Mytholog" in my area, so I can't seek out his reasonings for this assumption. However, on Parada's more recent "Greek Mythology Link" he makes no claim that Hera and Zeus are Eris's parents, only that her sister might be Ares.

Furthermore in the Iliad Ares is referred to as "comrade sister" of Eris. This might well be a simple reference to the fact they're both deities of war. Not necessarily that they are siblings.

The basis in Hesiod's writings saying that there is not one strife alone may very well be more symbolical rather than considered a fact of lineage. It's also written in Works and Days rather than in Theogony, where you have to consider the context differently/appropriately.

I'm just wondering if the current presumption in the article is not jumping the gun a bit on the matter. Horkosianist (talk) 05:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point. You can look also in "Eris in Euripides"[1] and "Toward a Semantics of Ancient Conflict: Eris in the "Iliad"".[2] Have you tried looking for info in the Wikipedia library? Thinker78 (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Horkosianist: Thinker78 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked into the Wikipedia library before, I just don't have the necessary requirements to use it (yet). Thanks for the references though, I'll attempt to look into them. Horkosianist (talk) 14:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Wilson, John (1979). "Eris in Euripides". Greece & Rome. 26 (1): 7–20 – via JSTOR.
  2. ^ Nagler, Michael (1988). "Toward a Semantics of Ancient Conflict: Eris in the "Iliad"". The Classical World. 82 (2): 81–90 – via JSTOR.

"discordiansm" subsectgion in "Cultural influences

[edit]

WP:UNDUE: This article is about Greek goddess, not about its discordian version, which is already covered in two other large pages. Putting the same text into the third page is an unnecessary WP:FORK. - Altenmann >talk 21:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Modern mythology is still mythology, and Discordia (a Latin name for this goddess) redirects here, so the inclusion is appropriate. You can wait until I am done working on it and start and RfC if you like. Skyerise (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikipedia, every subject has a separate article. Greek Eris is not the same as discordian Eris. If you want to detail the latter, please write Eris (discordianism). - Altenmann >talk 21:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. All I need is a source that says that Discordians are invoking the Greek goddess Eris in modern times. Which will be relatively easy to do. You claim they are separate: then the burden is on you to provide a source to that effect. Skyerise (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You get it upside down. It is you are claiming they are the same. Borrowed name does not mean anything. We have plenty of things with the same name. - Altenmann >talk 21:59, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The lead clearly states that this was a "personification" of Chaos, not a goddess with temples. Personifications may be used by subsequent cultures in ways the more formal deities are not. If two cultures choose to personify the same concept under the same name, precisely what, pray tell, distinguishes them? Skyerise (talk) 22:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I invite you to try to get Ishtar, a Babylonian goddess, split from Inanna, the Sumerian original. Like Eris and Discordia, they are considered virtually indistinguishable. Skyerise (talk) 23:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise: is Discordianism and the Principia Discordia meant to be satire? If this is true, then would that mean there is no real religion involved? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 20:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Steve Quinn: two religious studies scholars are cited in the section to the effect that it is no longer considered parody but currently considered a religion or new religious movement. More details on that can be found at Discordianism § Religious studies, including the fact that the founders came to believe in it themselves. Besides the works cited there, that article has several religious studies books in further reading that also treat the theology of Discordianism seriously. There is also documented evidence that many of its followers take it seriously and object to it being classified as parody, see Religion and the Internet § Virtual religion. Skyerise (talk) 10:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Skyerise: OK thanks. This is pretty much what I have been learning about this topic. I admit it is interesting. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:15, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And sorry about the clown show remark. I was a little hot under the collar at the time. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:17, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the apology: that's "clown show with sources" to you. Lol! Skyerise (talk) 01:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]