I believe in total free will myself, it makes people are more than simple flesh golems and animals, it makes them truly human. If weak men don’t have free will they should aspire to acquire it. Punch rationalism in the face until it breaks, turn back the dice of fate. It is why the tree of good and evil was put in the garden. Pursuing free will, that is the pursuit of perfection. As actions without free will have no value.
If you are a slave to your emotions you are not free as much as being a slave to a dictator, idea, cult religion or to poverty.
Adding on ares-athena is very interesting. A well adjusted person will be able to employ each side of the dichotomy or cooperate with those that balance them. The Apollonian-athenian will make grand plans but will be incapable of generating vibes and impassioned speech, maybe even motivating themselves out of bed and so will need a Dionysian-Aresian to motivate people to carry their plans out.
The Dionysian-Aresian alone, controlled by their emotions will manipulate and chaotically warp everything around them in a black hole until it destroys even themselves. If only we could fuse Curtis Yarvin and Nala Ray together without it neutralizing.
I encourage you to develop this archetypal model in the realms of tradition, ethics, politics, and epistemology. It is certainly innovative while also being functional. Of course, a functional archetype seldom aligns with pure historical example, although this does not impact the usefulness of the model in question. Unlike Nietzsche, your model is more aligned to Tradition, and I would advise you to explore Evola's concept of the "Hyperborean Apollo" in Revolt Against the Modern World. I only suggest this because, unlike Nietzsche, Evola doesn't relegate Apollo to the realm of pure "human reason", but ascribes a transcendent, pre-mental quality to this type of Thought (which, in practical terms, may be construed as between mundane logic/reason and will in a higher capacity, such as "psychic" abilities).
As you already understand the fundamental differences between men and women (and Athena/Ares as a result), Evola may be more useful in this case. Regardless, great work. If my newsfeed can be compared to a desert, this article was a welcomed oasis.
Much food for thought there. You indeed take very Nietzschean approach, characterizing the vital as something thrives on productive conflict and sees oppositional forces interlocked in perpetual tension as essential to growth and dynamism.
I tend to take a more Hegelian approach to polarity, where the tension is not intrinsic, or inherently productive, but mediated and resolved through synthesis. This is a more grounded and unitive approach; certainly less explosive than outright combat. (Funnily, this maybe indicates your more Apollonian approach to archetypes and my more Dionysian approach 😉)
For that reason, I often tend to ask the question: what trinity is this duality giving rise to? That is to say, the *relationship* between two conjugates or complements can be treated as an archetype on its own – with its own flavor, story, goals, nature, etc.
> Finally, we come to Hermes, who represents the principle of dynamism and liminality itself, of transition and transformation. He is the god of boundaries and the crossing of boundaries, the state-between-states, of flowing and moving.
In this way, Hermes is the one that allows the crossing over from the objective/omniscient individuation of Apollo into the subjective/immanent experience of Dionysus, and vice-versa.
> Because the Hermetic is the principle of the in-between, it facilitates communication. The Hermetic in language represents language itself as a communicative medium, not definitions and syntax (which are Apollonian) or connotation and meaning (which are Dionysian).
For the second duality, I might offer Hephaestus as the bridge between Ares and Athena. Where Ares represents raw, immediate, and embodied action; and Athena suggests wisdom and strategy, and a type of calculated foresight:
> Hephaestus, the god of craftsmanship, invention, and the forge, represents the principle of transformation through labor and creativity. His hammer strikes not just metal, but the balance between unrestrained aggression and calculated wisdom.
> Hephaestus’ art transforms and intellect into action by forging weapons that unite force and refinement. He transforms Ares' chaotic violence into usable tools for victory, while also actualizing Athena’s strategic foresight into tangible structures and devices.
Mythological support for this role of Hephaestus as a balancing archetype, and completing the duality as a third person, comes from the fact that he was born of Hera alone, with Athena born of Zeus alone and Ares born of both Zeus and Hera.
One could argue that the temperaments that are 'turbulent' are the ones that feel the most comfortable in this third slot, acting as arbiters and synthesizers between the two poles. It is notable that Hermes is often treated as shifty/deceitful or a trickster, and Hephaestus was rejected as a child and thrown off a mountain.
In this way, the role of turbulence and the exile that usually follows (or results from) it denote an opportunity and responsibility on the part of that archetype to reclaim rejected psychic or spiritual material and bring it back to the collective for assimilation/metabolism.
I believe in total free will myself, it makes people are more than simple flesh golems and animals, it makes them truly human. If weak men don’t have free will they should aspire to acquire it. Punch rationalism in the face until it breaks, turn back the dice of fate. It is why the tree of good and evil was put in the garden. Pursuing free will, that is the pursuit of perfection. As actions without free will have no value.
If you are a slave to your emotions you are not free as much as being a slave to a dictator, idea, cult religion or to poverty.
Adding on ares-athena is very interesting. A well adjusted person will be able to employ each side of the dichotomy or cooperate with those that balance them. The Apollonian-athenian will make grand plans but will be incapable of generating vibes and impassioned speech, maybe even motivating themselves out of bed and so will need a Dionysian-Aresian to motivate people to carry their plans out.
The Dionysian-Aresian alone, controlled by their emotions will manipulate and chaotically warp everything around them in a black hole until it destroys even themselves. If only we could fuse Curtis Yarvin and Nala Ray together without it neutralizing.
I encourage you to develop this archetypal model in the realms of tradition, ethics, politics, and epistemology. It is certainly innovative while also being functional. Of course, a functional archetype seldom aligns with pure historical example, although this does not impact the usefulness of the model in question. Unlike Nietzsche, your model is more aligned to Tradition, and I would advise you to explore Evola's concept of the "Hyperborean Apollo" in Revolt Against the Modern World. I only suggest this because, unlike Nietzsche, Evola doesn't relegate Apollo to the realm of pure "human reason", but ascribes a transcendent, pre-mental quality to this type of Thought (which, in practical terms, may be construed as between mundane logic/reason and will in a higher capacity, such as "psychic" abilities).
As you already understand the fundamental differences between men and women (and Athena/Ares as a result), Evola may be more useful in this case. Regardless, great work. If my newsfeed can be compared to a desert, this article was a welcomed oasis.
Much food for thought there. You indeed take very Nietzschean approach, characterizing the vital as something thrives on productive conflict and sees oppositional forces interlocked in perpetual tension as essential to growth and dynamism.
I tend to take a more Hegelian approach to polarity, where the tension is not intrinsic, or inherently productive, but mediated and resolved through synthesis. This is a more grounded and unitive approach; certainly less explosive than outright combat. (Funnily, this maybe indicates your more Apollonian approach to archetypes and my more Dionysian approach 😉)
For that reason, I often tend to ask the question: what trinity is this duality giving rise to? That is to say, the *relationship* between two conjugates or complements can be treated as an archetype on its own – with its own flavor, story, goals, nature, etc.
My friend @autistocrates has written an essay on how Hermes is the great bridge between Apollo and Dionysus, completing the trinity. https://autistocrates.substack.com/p/apollo-dionysus-hermes
> Finally, we come to Hermes, who represents the principle of dynamism and liminality itself, of transition and transformation. He is the god of boundaries and the crossing of boundaries, the state-between-states, of flowing and moving.
In this way, Hermes is the one that allows the crossing over from the objective/omniscient individuation of Apollo into the subjective/immanent experience of Dionysus, and vice-versa.
> Because the Hermetic is the principle of the in-between, it facilitates communication. The Hermetic in language represents language itself as a communicative medium, not definitions and syntax (which are Apollonian) or connotation and meaning (which are Dionysian).
For the second duality, I might offer Hephaestus as the bridge between Ares and Athena. Where Ares represents raw, immediate, and embodied action; and Athena suggests wisdom and strategy, and a type of calculated foresight:
> Hephaestus, the god of craftsmanship, invention, and the forge, represents the principle of transformation through labor and creativity. His hammer strikes not just metal, but the balance between unrestrained aggression and calculated wisdom.
> Hephaestus’ art transforms and intellect into action by forging weapons that unite force and refinement. He transforms Ares' chaotic violence into usable tools for victory, while also actualizing Athena’s strategic foresight into tangible structures and devices.
Mythological support for this role of Hephaestus as a balancing archetype, and completing the duality as a third person, comes from the fact that he was born of Hera alone, with Athena born of Zeus alone and Ares born of both Zeus and Hera.
One could argue that the temperaments that are 'turbulent' are the ones that feel the most comfortable in this third slot, acting as arbiters and synthesizers between the two poles. It is notable that Hermes is often treated as shifty/deceitful or a trickster, and Hephaestus was rejected as a child and thrown off a mountain.
In this way, the role of turbulence and the exile that usually follows (or results from) it denote an opportunity and responsibility on the part of that archetype to reclaim rejected psychic or spiritual material and bring it back to the collective for assimilation/metabolism.
Great things to think about. As usual, Daniella with the Beautiful Mind on these topics.
I want to comment, but I’ll just hang out and read. Ya’ll are on another level.
the ares/athena distinction seems related to the Machiavellian lion/fox dichotomy.