Greek vs Roman Mythology

The Differences and Similarities of Two Fascinating Cultures

Taken from this website, was fascinated yet confused after visiting the Pompeii exhibit at the National Museum.

The Greek and Roman Mythologies have fascinated human beings for centuries, inspiring books, movies, research, and conversation among those who want to learn more and who want to share the fables of the Gods and Goddesses. Their stories (myths or mythos, depending on the origin), their triumphs and failures, and their imminent Immortality has been the influence of many other religions, including Paganism and Norse Mythology.

Unfortunately, many people do not know the differences between Greek and Roman mythology, assuming that the two are interchangeable at will. In reality, the two are very different from one another, and capture almost opposing life values that are central to the people of the time. Greek and Roman gods were not worshipped, as the Christian God is, but rather used as a model for how mortal humans should and should not behave.

The Greeks came first, some 1,000 years before the Romans. Their most appreciated work, the Iliad, was distributed 700 years before the Roman's most popular manuscript, the Aeneid. The Iliad was based on at least 300 years of myths and stories, which were gathered from the tales passed down by mortal observants, which certainly correlates with the Christian Bible. It was not meant as a holy scripture, however, but as a recorded history of the Greek Gods and Goddesses, who were revered by men during that time.

The Greeks were focused primarily on life on earth, versus the eventuality of the afterlife. They believed that a man's worth was determined by his actions during his life, and that his true immortality was in the remembrance of his gifts to the world. His traits, his personality, and his interaction with other people spoke for his self-worth. Gods and Goddesses were based on human personality traits - such as Love, Honor, Dignity, and Hatred - and their actions in myths were symbolic of the actions of men. Many myths involved a mortal or a deity snatching something back from the Underworld, which illustrated their belief that the afterlife was not of any concern, and that it was the physical world that was important.

Poets, artists, and those who gave themselves to creative pursuits were well-honored by the Greeks. They held creativity above physical works in the mortal and mythical world; myths reflected those personal traits and were meant to expose the positive and negative aspects of humanity. Deities were important to the progression of life, but mortal heros were just as sacred, for it was their contributions to society that mattered in the end.

Individualism was also very important; the actions of a group were not as consequential as the actions of an individual. Men were responsible for their own well-being, and could not be bothered by the mistakes of the masses.

Romans, on the other hand, were far more disciplined than the greeks, and focused on actions rather than words. Whereas the Greeks revered the poet, the Romans held up the warrior as the epitome of sanctity, and rewarded bravery and risks taken by both mortals and deities. They strongly felt that good deeds on earth would be well-received in Heaven, and they strove to earn their place among the Gods in the afterlife. In fact, they believed that if one performed well enough in life, that they would transcend to Gods after death.

The Romans adopted many of the myths and deities of the Greeks, though they changed names and circumstances to support their own beliefs. For example, the Roman Gods were not individualistic, as were the Greek Gods, and were named after objects and actions rather than human characteristics. Myths were rooted in the brave, heroic acts of the Gods, and rarely displayed the lives of mortals, because mortal life was not as important as that after death.

Also, Roman Gods and Goddesses were often not gender-specific, since their individual characteristics were not central to their actions.

Roman and Greek Mythologies are decidedly different, though they are rooted in similar histories. A study of their individual characteristics illustrates the values and beliefs of the Greeks and Romans respectively, and can offer a better understanding of how these myths and anecdotes originally came about.

Asian Pride?

I'm sure most of you have heard this song. And I'm sure most of you like it. I actually find it really annoying. But I digress.

As I'm sure all of you know, "Like a G6" by Asian-American group Far East Movement has made it to the #1 spot on iTunes as well as the American Billboard Hot 100. And suddenly, you hear it everywhere-- on the radio and in clubs, and see the song's lyrics on Facebook and Tweets. And with that comes the exclamation "ASIAN PRIDE!"

Uhm. Okay. Asian pride? Why? Have we not, over decades, tons of Asian pop that we ought to be proud of as well? With all due respect to Far East Movement (as much as the song annoys me to no end), we have so many more singers and groups that have stellar vocals and songs (with better lyrics, definitely) that have been around for ages. They are good performers and have made the #1 spot, not in America or on iTunes but perhaps in say, the Tokio Hot 100 or the RTHK Asian Charts in Hong Kong. So why do we revel in Asian pride only when we receive affirmation from a Western country?

It seems as though we seek confirmation and approval from the States, using them as a benchmark for good music, so much so that when an Asian American group sings an English song in an American (hip hop) style and wins American affirmation, we get ecstatic. Is this really what we call being proud to be Asian? Why aren't we proud of our own homegrown artistes in Singapore or in the rest of Asia, and instead end up lambasting those who listen to Mandopop as 'cheena' or 'lian'?

Why are we proud of these American-born Asians when we aren't even proud of, say, Ah Du (阿杜) in China? Or are Singaporeans just confused on their affiliations, wanting to associate themselves too much with the Western world, Mcdonalisation and Consumerism that we fail to see true 'Asian-ness' and be proud of it?

NB: I just watched the video and its full of Americanised culture.. so seriously. Asian Pride? Maybe. But only to a very limited extent.

Gaia

I have taken up a keen interest in the environment recently.. and no, it isn't just a phase where I decide to carve a niche for myself as a hippie, mother-nature-loving environmentalist but rather something that has been going on for about half a year now. Attempts to decrease my own carbon footprint have been rather successful-- no cravings for meat, although I do (unwillingly) eat pork or beef about once a month because someone dear to me tells me it is 'good for my mental health'. And of course I would love to end up anaemic, wouldn't I? My future spouse will also be most elated to know that I have made the decision (albeit a really tough one) to stop purchasing leather goods (yes go on, reel from shock for a few seconds).

As most will come to realize, however, environmentalism alone is not enough to save the world. As much as we would like to believe that every person can play a part in 'saving the earth', households contribute approximately only 9 per cent of carbon emissions. While of course industrial pollution amasses a total of over 50 per cent, with transport at about 20 per cent. There is really little or nothing individuals can do as opposed to what large corporations can achieve if they cut down on their carbon footprint.

But there are other larger forces at work, political and economic. Governments that are the only ones who can really shape the future of the earth. What good is environmentalism; re-using paper bags or double-sided printing, if governments are uninterested in fighting global warming?

I am heartened to know that there are governments around the world who have invested heavily in research and development for alternative forms of energy. However, carbon emissions have remained the same in 2010 as compared to 2009, with Asian countries being the biggest contributors of carbon emissions. This not only includes China as the largest carbon emitter in the world but also India, another developing country and even South Korea. In fact, scientists believe that emissions are likely to resume their upward track and scale a new peak in 2010.

Thankfully, there have been changes. South Korea has recently invested US$8.3 billion in an offshore wind farm and China has its own Tianjin eco-district, a joint project with Singapore, no less.

But China and India's carbon emissions still stand high. Although signatories of the Kyoto Protocol, the two countries are not yet obliged to abide by the carbon cap as they are STILL a developing nation... and will continue to be for at least another 5 years. But there is a loophole. The West is no longer seen as the main culprit for its greenhouse gas emissions for the very fact that they have outsourced their production to countries like China and India the 'developing nations' that can afford not to abide by the carbon cap. The United States has countless outsourced productions in China. So although it seems like the ever-revered West is making advancements in sustainable technology and that they are the 'leaders in fighting against global warming', some have really exploited the loophole in the Kyoto Protocol. Is there, then, really a way we can keep to the targets of the carbon caps?

Geo-engineering is a potential solution. It seems dangerous, and pretty elusive, but with the right amount of research and investment it could spell an end to global warming. Carbon sequestration can serve as one of the ways countries like China can cut down on their emissions. As one of the richest countries in the world, I'm sure the Chinese will be able (and are daring enough) to partake in geo-engineering effort and investment. They were, after all, the first to create a storm when they decided on cloud seeding.

But of course, adequate knowledge is necessary before attempting to alter the environment. Geo-engineering has been banned in several countries and has been widely criticised as being an 'international manipulation of the environment'. Hypocritical, I would say, considering that man-made changes are needed to counter pollution that is man-made in the first place.

Our earth is the only element that remains immutable. Everything else has remained relatively transient, even the most powerful men in the world will not live forever. Earth has witnessed the changes over the centuries--wars, death, disaster, military and industrial activity that has destroyed the earth's surface. And we know all we are doing is but contributing to the planet's demise. The ice cap has melted 4% over the last at a rate of 230 gigatonnes (230,000 billion kilograms) a year. We need collective action and the work of politics to fight against global warming, this is what our era needs to see, this is the war we are fighting against, not a war of religion or for oil, but one to sustain life and the world we live in.

As if we were God's spies

“...and we’ll talk with them too—
Who loses and who wins, who’s in, who’s out—
And take upon ’s the mystery of things
As if we were God’s spies. And we’ll wear out
In a walled prison packs and sects of great ones
That ebb and flow by the moon.”

- King Lear; William Shakespeare

In today’s world; who’s winning and who’s losing—who’s in, who’s out? What is the mystery of our universe? In light of recent developments in the Korean peninsula, I can’t help but realise the differences between how Asia and Europe handle historic legacies and events. Many say Asia is the new Europe, boasting a collective continent as a whole that is rich in culture as well as a rapidly growing economy. But there are more differences between the two continents than we know.

Europe; for one, has a largely homogeneous Western race. Sure there are the different Palaeolithic and Mediterranean types; but they are largely just... white.

Asia, on the other hand; has a myriad of different races that can easily be identified. We have the Oriental East Asian races (China, Japan, North and South Korea), South Asians (Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Nepalese—who are a different colour all together, similar to the Mongolians) and an even wider array in Southeast Asia—Malay, Indonesian (yes they are different, and even in Indonesia itself there are countless numbers of different indigenous and racial populous), Burmese, Vietnamese, Eurasians... the list goes on.

The heterogeneity of the different races in Asia thus constitutes many different cultures. Despite many sociologists stereotyping Asian culture into a particular mould where we are said (and written) to be collectivistic and hierarchical (I can’t deny it though, Asian society prides itself on the basis of values like filial piety and respect; these are not only so for East Asian types but also in South Asia—the caste system is undeniably hierarchical); different religions as well as Western influences coupled with cultural flows internally largely shape the multitude of different cultures in Asia today.

This probably then affects the way Asians do business. Asia has been one of the largest business hubs in history; where in the 1820s we accounted for 3/5 of the world’s total GDP. Chinese businessmen, Indian merchants and Southeast Asian artisans ruled the seas. Albeit eventually falling behind due to Western industrialisation; Asia today is gradually and rapidly taking back its share and cementing its global presence with China and India—two of Asia’s giants; and Japan, who although suffered badly in the 1980’s bubble burst is still one of the largest players in the global economic scene with undisputedly advanced technology well beyond any other country in the world. Our diverse economic strategies that combine capitalism with our culture and ideology have made us different from laissez-faire Europe. It is easy to describe the EU’s economy in one sentence but not Asia’s.

Going back to the issue of historic legacies, it is most intriguing how differently Asians handle memory of war. As I quote Brahma Chellaney, author of Asian Juggernauts; these are “shadows of history” that Europe has “done a better job in coming to terms with”. While in Europe there is a regional consciousness of condemnation of war crimes like the Holocaust (even in Germany where they commemorate Auschwitz, the then-Nazi concentration camp established for Jews); Asia on the other hand commemorates its “war heroes” (contentious point; but shan’t elaborate; refer to blog post “It is written”, haha) – Japan built Yasukuni shrine to remember the kamikaze pilots who died in WWII. It’s therefore about using history as a tool for nationalism versus using it as a reminder to prevent racism, exclusion, and oppression.

What has this got to do with recent developments between the Korean conflict, you ask. Well much of what is happening in Korea today is a result of how we as Asians handle what has happened in history. While the Berlin wall has fallen, representative of the decomposition of European differences between Capitalism and Communism; the Korean War is still unfortunately still ongoing, with even further escalations in conflict today. It saddens the world to see how a country can be so divided based on mistakes made in history that have uncontrolled ramifications today. There are still two Vietnams, two Chinas and two Koreas because we can’t seem to let go of ideals that were in fact propagated by Westerners.

That being said, all these are a result of Western imperialism and colonialism. Enforcement of Western decisions on Asian countries has very much divided us. It was American administrators who separated Korea at the 38th parallel; a result of Western political division by who else but the Soviets and Americans. With the North ruled by the bear and the South by the eagle; the country still remains divided today as a result of differences in Western ideology that is now deeply entrenched in Asian minds. Borders in Asia were drawn up by Western colonialists, who drew the lines between Thailand and Malaysia resulting in the minority Thai-Muslim population in Southern Thailand deeply isolated by predominantly Buddhist Thailand.

The events in history are so connected its scary. Everything we do has endless ramifications. As they say, the flutter of a butterfly’s wing may cause a tornado on the other side of the world. Such is the mystery of our universe.

Chemistry? It's all in the mind

By Charlotte Philby (The Independent, 13 September 2008)

"Love at first sight" is defined as a condition in which someone feels romantic love for a stranger immediately upon meeting them. Brain imaging shows that when this happens areas of the brain involved with dopamine, a hormone and neurotransmitter, are activated. Dopamine has important roles in behaviour and information processing, in activity, motivation and reward, sleep, mood, attention and learning. Hence intense romantic love is associated with neuronal reward and motivation pathways in the brain, particularly in areas involved with addictive behaviour such as compulsive gambling.

Love deactivates a set of regions in the brain associated with negative emotions, social judgement and "mentalising" (assessing other people's intentions and emotions), and bonds individuals through the involvement of the reward circuitry.

Romantic love has much in common with behaviours in other mammals and in birds: it is the third of three behavioural repertoires associated with reproduction: sex drive (to find a mate), attraction (to find the best mate) and attachment (to allow time for successful reproduction). To science, romantic love is not a particular emotion and does not use a functionally specialised area of the brain. It enables the individual to make a more efficient use of time and resources for successful reproduction. It is believed that "love at first sight" is an extreme extension of the normal romantic bonding process.

It is written.

I recently had a very interesting conversation with a friend regarding our views on History-- a subject that I have been studying for a good 9 years now. As much as I love the subject, I would have to say that what we study about in textbooks are very much skewed and biased (then again one would argue that absolutely NOTHING is unbiased in this world). Well in short, as we all know, History is written by its victors.

Well it's simple, really. The world works on a basis of Darwinism, which basically talks about the survival of the fittest. The stronger survive and the weaker, well, die. Similarly, in the course of global politics and power play, the stronger nations triumph and basically get whatever they want when it comes to treaty terms and conditions; while those who are weaker and eventually lose will have to reluctantly accept the victor's T&C. This, we all know.

But of course, then, are we too quick to believe that which we read in History textbooks or even Social Studies textbooks? Are the British and Americans really the "good guys" and the Germans and Japanese the "bad guys"? Weren't the Russians part of the Allies too? Why aren't they portrayed as the "good guys" as well? Did the allies not kills hundreds of thousands of lives, civilian or not, just like the Axis Powers did?

Communism ideals work on the basis of egalitarianism and the utopian view of Communism would be that everyone works for everyone and that power and wealth would be distributed evenly-- so why is it that Communism is seen as an evil force? And yet, Capitalist America is portrayed as the 'freedom fighting, liberalising driving force that will set you free", the American symbol of the Eagle that soars way up high above us.

While I can't deny that the Holocaust is definitely downright and purely morally wrong, I can't also agree that the Atomic bomb was necessary. Is this, then, a question of whose lives are worth more? Does this mean that Japanese lives were not worth as much as the, say, Americans at Pearl Harbour? Definitely not.

Just something that I've thought about for quite a few years since I was 16-- when in History lesson we were taught the controversies surrounding the nuclear use on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945:

1. Nuclear use was not necessary because the Japanese were already fighting a losing battle-- the Japanese were fast exhausting their resources in the Pacific and lost a lot of men due to their Kamikaze tactics. It was soon enough that they would be too weak to continue the fight and eventual surrender would ensue (One could argue, though, that they have a no-surrender mentality, but given the lack of manpower and resources they would probably be left with no choice just as they did surrender eventually)

2. The dropping of the atomic bombs were just an opportunity for the Americans to showcase their nuclear power and advances in weapon technology to Russia. There were huge tensions between the Capitalist and Communist blocs that were arising as WWII was coming to an end (the alliance between Russia and America to defeat the Axis Powers was definitely just a marriage of convenience) and America wanted to psychologically threaten the Soviet Union in terms of showing what they were capable of, attempting to put off the Communists from trying to infiltrate or influence and 'poison' even more governments and countries.

I've never then agreed with how the Japanese were portrayed to be evil. Yes they had atrocities towards the people. And yes, they had a insatiable hunger and thirst for power that led to them wanting to take over Asia and eventually the world, but hey, wasn't this the case for European Imperialism as well? The Western powers, Britain, Germany, Italy and France--they were all fighting for territories. And lets not go into colonialism. They did provide education. Western education. Just as the Japanese DID provide education in Singapore schools as well.

As for killings, lives were lost when the Western powers were fighting for their territories in Africa as well. Why is imperialism and colonialism justified when that was also what the Japanese were trying to do? Does it mean that White people can rule but not us Asians?

All this is a product of what is written by those who won the fight, be it WWI/II, or the Cold War. I know that there isn't a solution to this because everything has been written. But well, I suppose we should, in future, not be quick to dispel the Japanese or the other 'bad guys' in History to be purely evil, and at the same time realise that well, whatever in the books may be factual and accurate, but we cannot purely be biased in our views towards what has happened in the course of History that will affect our political discourses. This could have further implications and ramifications as well especially since there is religious tension due to terrorist bombings as well as the Iraq War. We shouldn't be quick to separate and distinguish who is good and evil in this fight as there are atrocities on both ends.

Pseudo-individualism

"The wise man does at once what the fool does finally."

-Niccolo Machiavelli

One thing I really do not understand about Singaporean youth is that they value something overly highly-- individualism. I do, too, sometimes. But it has gotten to a point where the pioneers of new ideas have moved on, while blind followers are still caught up in trying so hard to be different that they end up being all the same. Simply put it, it's pseudo-individuality.

I could be guilty of it too, maybe we all are, in one way or another, or at least at one point in our lives. I have a very good example that illustrates my point-- Indie music.

Indie; or 'independent' music, refers to musicians who are void of being 'tainted' or influenced by any particular record label/company. In that sense, Indie musicians apparently produce music considered to be less commercial and not as mainstream as many artistes under record companies are. True that, and although I must confess I am definitely not a connoisseur when it comes to music, I do realise that many Singaporean youth are beginning to listen more to Indie music just because.

Why, I ask. Is there something wrong with commercial music; Coldplay, Keane, even ,well, Britney Spears (for the love of god I do not like her, this is' just for the sake of using an example of a typical pop-princess type of thing)? Is it that important that one listens to something that not everybody else is listening to on the radio? Does it make you more special that you are listening to Indie music? Je ne comprends pas! I do not understand this, at all.

But well, before I have Indie music fans shoot me down for criticising their music choices and tastes, let me first disclaim that I have no qualms or jurisdiction over what songs anybody wants to listen to. Sure there are people who really love Indie music because, well, I don't know, but surely there are undoubtedly many out there who are Indie fans just for the sake of being Indie fans, no? Disagree?

This blog post is, however, not one that seeks to rant on issues that revolve around music. More importantly, I want to draw references to the politically apathetic youth in Singapore. Just as many are drawn to Indie music for whatever reason, I have no idea why the Singaporean youth are so bent on putting down the PAP. They complain that they are oppressive, put down democracy, and do not allow freedom of speech. Basically everyone claims that they are a watchdog government that is almost omni-present and that you can never escape from the clutches of the government!

While I can't deny that Singapore is not exactly being run under the basis of true-blue American freedom-fighting-esque democracy, we are in essence and in theory, a Republic. In addition to this, we can only decide on our leaders for the GRCs in various constituencies and henceforth indirectly decide the ruling party, and from there a Prime Minister is being elected into office by the ruling party. Our Westminster system is not one that really allows for us to have direct contact and communication with the leader of our nation, unlike say the States where their Presidential System allows for a more direct contact with the President in terms of voices being heard. Presidential candidates put in effort to garner support from the peoples because of the very fact that their competition is strong. There isn't any walkover, there isn't any sure-win, people are undecided on who they should vote for because they genuinely support ideals that the candidates push through, i.e. ending the Iraq war, or continuing stem cell research, legalising homosexual marriages etc.

I implore you, then, to think: is our opposition strong enough, even, to rally against the PAP? Sure there are exceptions; there is WP's Low Thia Kiang who's managed to win over Hougang, and SDP's Chiam See Tong (whom I deeply respect; but whose health is obviously ailing) who are undeniably talented and intelligent individuals. But pray tell me, is the PAP not doing a good job in their respective GRCs? Do we not get the lift-upgrading, or the 'study/chess corners', or the well-built & clean bus stops and shelters that we need? We do. Is Singapore society so largely unfair and divided in wealth that we see homeless people everywhere on the streets? No. Do we not get our right to education (even if we do, some people take it for granted)? Absolutely not.

Moreover, it is not only the Singapore government that practices strict censorship laws in terms of media outlets and press freedom. MDA does have strict laws but they have definitely tried to go around it by imposing the M18/NC16 rule. As for press freedom, I do know that Singapore is used in many academic examples as being one of the strictest in the world but there are other countries who are becoming increasingly oppressive. Think about it-- at least we don't have something like the Great firewall of China. Yes, there are several websites that are banned in Singapore but hey at least you are able to access your facebook, Twitter, and Youtube account.

So what's with these youth trying to advocate democracy just for the sake of it? Well, I am definitely not undermining the value of democracy, it is also an ideology that I agree with. But ask yourself a few questions:

1. How should democracy be achieved in a system like Singapore's? Is there a way that we can speak up to our Prime Minister and vote for a PM directly? No. Our political system does not allow this. And our system is definitely not warped or unfair, the United Kingdom practices the Westminster system as well.

2. If you are truly an advocate for democracy and you are extremely pent up and frustrated about the lack of a voice here in Singapore, why aren't you doing anything about it? Do you really want to make a difference so much that you complain that the PAP is not doing its job proper? Why not do something about it rather than whine all day?

I'm definitely not trying to promote the PAP, yes I do know that every party has its flaws but I believe largely that the ruling party is doing a good job in the country. I may not agree on its policies sometimes (that being rising COE prices that are insanely exorbitant) but what I do not agree more on is how the youth today are constantly putting down the PAP when they are doing nothing about it. Is it because everyone is doing so? Has the PAP left you jaded and skeptical and resentful over their oppressiveness? I doubt so, but if they are, why don't you make a difference today?

-

PM Lee's interview with Charlie Rose.

invictus

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

William Ernest Henley