Ancient Greek Philosopher, Plato, believes that the self is your soul and that it can be split into three parts; the rational, the spirited, and the appetite.
The rational soul is a moral and rational guide for the self and is the part of the soul that Plato considers most important. It is located in the head and is what enables humans to perform cognitive functions such as thinking, analyzing, and reflecting. The spiritual soul represents someone's emotions. It is located in the heart and is what allows someone to feel emotions such as happiness, anger, love, etc. Finally, the appetite represents human desire and is located in the abdomen. It's what causes humans to desire things and our physical wants.
Plato describes these three through a charioteer. The charioteer (rational) is driving a chariot that is controlled by two horses (spirited and appetite). The two horses are pulling in two separate directions as they are in conflict with each other. It is the charioteer's job to control the two horses by keeping the two balanced, otherwise, the charioteer won't reach his destination. Plato views the self as someone who is able to think rationally, has a clear vision of what they are doing, and is able to balance their spirit and appetite.
In ancient Greek society, the existence of the Greek Gods and Goddesses is weaved within everyday life. Greek society believed that the Gods and Goddesses were the ones in control of whether you lived or died. Whether you had safe passage across the sea or whether your crops grew that year, among other things. This belief that there were higher beings controlling things was shown through the ancient Greek's need to stay in favor of the Gods and Goddesses. Ancient Greeks would stay in favor of the Gods and Goddesses by making offerings in temples and on alters. With the idea of higher beings controlling things down on Earth comes the debate of fate vs free will.
The idea of fate within Greek society is that one cannot control one's fate, not even the Gods can intervene. The ones who decided someone's fate were known as the three sister deities known as The Moirai, most commonly known as The Fates. Although many things are fated, in Greek mythology there is still a depiction of slight free will. However, this free-will will typically play into one's fate by either delaying it or prompting it to happen sooner. An example of this is the myth of Meleager. In the myth, the fates visit Meleager's parents to tell them of his fate. They predict that he would be noble and brave, however, he would die once one of the sticks in the fireplace had burned completely. This prompted his mother to remove one of the sticks from the fireplace and keep it safe. Although there is debate about Meleager's death, they all state that after killing the Calydonian Boar, Meleager quarreled with his uncles which led to their deaths. Upon hearing this, his mother proceeded to burn the stick which caused Meleager to die. This shows that although Meleager's Mother used her free-will to protect the stick from the fireplace, his fate was pre-destined and he died either way.
An example of a hero displaying free-will is Achilles and his double fate. Achilles' mother, Thetis, hears of his double fate and, not wanting to outlive her son, dips him in the River Styx. His double fate is that he can either become a great hero yet live a short life or, live a long life and be unknown. As we know in Homer's The Iliad, Achilles uses his free will to become a great warrior yet live a short life. This shows how, although humans may have some free-will, in the end, everything has been fated. That's not to say you can't fight it - as shown in the myth of Meleager - but in the end, you will meet your fate. The only free-will within Greek myths is how you get from point A to point B.
Heros were prominent in Greek mythology with some of the most prominent heroes including Hercules, Jason, Perseus, and many more. Many heroes in Greek mythology are born from one godly parent and one mortal parent, making the child a demigod - half-god, half-mortal. This allowed them separation from the everyday man while still being an everyday man. If they didn't have a godly parent, such as Jason, they would often have the Greek Gods' favor - even if for a short time. Typically, the heroes also would have loose morals which further emphasized the separation of heroes from everyday men. This also emphasized their godly parentage as typically, gods had few morals or ethics which was believed to be an example to mortals. An example of what could happen if morals or ethics weren't followed.
Modern Times
The Hulk
Nowadays, heroes that are demigods aren't so common. Modern heroes come from a range of backgrounds, however, they will all typically have some sort of superpower that separates them from everyday men rather than godly parentage. One major difference between an ancient Greek hero and a modern hero is that modern heroes are supposed to set a good example. While in ancient Greece, a hero was cheating on their lover or killing their family in a fit of rage, a modern hero is someone we're supposed to aspire to be. They help those in need and put others first while maintaining a positive never-give-up attitude. What makes a hero today isn't their godly parentage and separation from everyday man, instead, it's the message that in the end, anyone can be a hero. This comes from the fact that most modern heroes aren't born with their superpowers like ancient Greek heroes. While Hercules is born with super-strength, The Hulk obtains his super-strength and learns to use it for the greater good.
The Ship of Theseus is a thought experiment that was first written down by Plutarch - an ancient Greek historian. Plutarch wrote, "The ship wherein Theseus and the youth of Athens returned had thirty oars, and was preserved by the Athenians down even to the time of Demetrius Phalereus, for they took away the old planks as they decayed, putting in new and stronger timber in their place, insomuch that this ship became a standing example among the philosophers, for the logical question of the things that grow; one side holding that the ship remained the same, and the other contending that it was not the same." The question is, if you replace each part of a Theseus ship with new wood, is it still Theseus ship? Many believe that this is similar to human life. Humans are constantly changing, both physically and mentally, so, if we are constantly changing, are we still us in the end? Philosophers believe that objects are constantly changing and evolving, however, the identity of the object never changes. If an elephant evolved to not have husks we don't stop calling it an elephant. In the end, we're in a constant state of changing and it's something we can't control. You can try and shape yourself into a good person, but you can't control things like that and sometimes you need to let the universe flow. Certain things might stay with you, such as morals, ethics, and sometimes even mannerisms, other times you just need to let it flow. Things will also occur that you didn't want to happen, however, those things may benefit you in the future.
This year in art I'm doing a level 2 board and I'm somewhat excited. Now that I know what I'm doing and what the process is like, the nerves I had at the start of last year aren't there this year. At the moment I'm thinking of doing my theme about childhood and growing up though I'm not completely sure. I'll probably end up doing that but we'll have to see. Below is my mood board for this year. I'm thinking of taking inspiration from Kandinsky's use of color. I've always liked paintings that sort of lean into abstract or use colors that are different from what things would be in real life. However, I'm not very good at abstract but I do wanna play with color this year. Maybe. My overarching theme though will be spiritual/cultural development.
Also, fun fact about Kandinsky, one of his artworks can be seen in the background of IZ*ONE's music video for their song "Fiesta". Just a little fun fact the no one cares about.
Propaganda is a form of advertising meant to persuade or influence its audience to believe in a certain idea. Propaganda typically exaggerates truths, insults the opposition, and contains hidden messages, and is used mostly by companies and politicians. You can find propaganda everywhere including television, books, flyers, posters, radio, and speeches. The 7 types of propaganda most commonly used are known as bandwagon, name-calling, testimonial, glittering generality, plain folks, card stacking, and transfer.
Bandwagon
Bandwagon is a form of propaganda that involves persuading someone that they should do what everyone else is doing. The audience should jump on the bandwagon and believe/support a certain idea because everyone else is and they shouldn't miss out. An example of this is Dunkin' Donuts' slogan "America Runs On Dunkin'" This slogan claims that everyone in America drinks Dunkin' Donuts and that you should jump on the bandwagon.
Name-Calling
Name-calling in propaganda involves putting down the opposition by calling them names. This is to make the audience believe that the opposition is lesser or worse due to being associated with words that have a negative connotation. This is most commonly used in politics or between two brands that have a history of rivalry (i.e Burger King and Mcdonalds). An example is Donald Trump nicknaming Hillary Clinton "Crooked Hillary Clinton" so when Trump supporters think of Hillary Clinton, they associate her with being crooked and/or dishonest.
Testimonial
A testimonial is when a product, person, or idea is endorsed by someone, typically a celebrity. Because of this, people will support the subject because it is either endorsed by someone trustworthy (i.e a doctor) or because their favorite celebrity supports it. Sometimes these two things will cross over eg. Michael Jordan's endorsement of Nike (he is someone famous who is also a professional basketball player).
Glittering Generality
The use of glittering generality in propaganda involves using words that merely make the subject sound good. The words don't necessarily have to have any meaning behind them, as long as it makes the subject sound good. Similar to name-calling, this causes the audience to associate that subject with words that have a positive connotation. An example is Mcdonald's advertisement for their chocolate mocha, "Creamy. Dreamy. Icy. Chocolatey."
Plain Folks
Plain Folks is a technique used to convince the audience that the subject is for everyone. Everyone can use this product or a politician is just like you and me. It doesn't feel like the subject isn't for a certain demographic, rather it appeals to everyone. A popular form of this technique is a politician or celebrity doing regular things. For example, Obama eating at Mcdonald's to show that he's just like us and eats fast food. Another is a member of the upper class or government (i.e president, prime minister, or royal family) visiting a hospital or those in need. Whether these actions are genuine doesn't matter, as long as it makes the audience believe that the subject is just like all the other folks.
Card Stacking
Card Stacking is similar to glittering generality in that it also used positive words. However, card stacking typically uses a list format or red, white, and blue format. It will involve just listing off positive things about the subject. For example, Burger King's advertisement for their satisfries product. They state "40% less fat, 30% less calories, and big taste".
Transfer
Transfer in propaganda is used when you want to associate the subject with something else. This something else can either be bad or good and can be done by either side of the opposition. It convinces the audience that something is inherently either good or bad as it is associate with something that is either good or bad. For example, Uncle Sam wears the colors of the American flag, so he is typically associated with patriotism and can be seen as a physical manifestation of America calling on its citizens to join the war effort. An unfortunately extremely common example of transfer is comparing something to the Holocaust. Typically the subject is compared to the Holocaust is nothing like the Holocaust in any way shape or form and it would be considered antisemitic to compare the two. A recent example is the comparison of Kristallnacht to the Capitol Riot in the U.S.A. These two events are nothing alike however, many continue to do it.
