#like its technically fake philosophy but also kinda real philosophy

[activatebutterflyshield]

Something different today! A bit of existential philosophy about the nature of god(s) and creation from the Layered Earth. WIP day 9.

-

What of the Gods?

-

There are many gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, supreme beings, etc, etc, but what are they really? Many philosophers have tried to answer this question, as have scientists of all stripes, from biologists to physicists to locuschemists to chronopsychologists. Alchemists and theologians, magic practitioners and daydreamers alike have thought long and hard about the gods. But, perhaps, it is 19th century French humanist philosopher and astrumphysicist Gilbert Jean-Pierre who most concisely stated the nature of gods.

“He, or They, or It is not our creator, as no god, nor gods, is, nor are. Gods only exist because of Humanity; We are the true creators. That is why gods are always comprehensible, why they always appear as animals or humans or immobile objects, yet seem to be many things at once. What other explanation exists for why the Wolf of War carries the SPQR banner? Or for why the Captain of Industry exhales smoke that smells of sweat and stings like tears?

That is humanity’s greatest power. Through our beliefs, We create gods. Is there no greater proof of our power? Of our strength?”

Though Honorable Jean-Pierre is certainly correct, at least in the aspect that gods are, in part, the creation of humanity, there are far more nuances that this famous quote doesn’t cover. So, let’s cover them here.

What are gods?

The big question. ‘God’ is a very broad term, much like ‘dragon’ or ‘demon’ or ‘fairy/faerie’. But, in general, ‘gods’ are powerful supernatural entities that are conventionally immortal and conventionally immaterial. In this case, ‘conventionally immortal’ means that they do not die of injury, sickness, or bodily failure, while ‘conventionally immaterial’ means that they may or may not exist at any point in space-time that they have access to.

How are gods made?

Another big question. The simplest answer is that humanity thinks them into being. The complicated answer goes something like this:

1. A decent portion of Humanity collectively latches onto a concept. This could be something as big as ‘civilization’, or as small as ‘this chord followed by this chord is really pretty’. Most of the time, small-scale ‘latchings’, as the professionals call it, don’t lead to the creation of gods, as humanity fails to fulfill the next few steps. The number of people needed to cross the ‘latch’ threshold is rather small, sometimes as small as a single family.

2. The portion of Humanity assigns some characteristics to the latched concept. This could be anything from ‘the stars are the campfires of our ancestors’ to ’cactus are mean’. The characteristics must be somewhat consistent within the portion involved.

3. The portion of Humanity begins creating stories or associating occurrences with the latched concept. These run the gambit from ‘the leopard’s spots are the eyes of the people it killed, doomed to forever serve their killer in hunting more prey’ to ‘every time that plant grows, there’s a really big drought coming, so the plant is magic’. The stories or occurrences must be somewhat consistent within the portion involved.

4. The portion of Humanity begins linking unrelated occurrences or preexisting stories to the latched concept. These can be anything from ‘the roaring waves of the ocean are the wails of the drowned dead directed to the heavens where the exalted dead go’ to ‘that eagle who hunts fish is the reincarnation of the first hunter of fish ever’. These linked stories do not have to be consistent within the portion, they must simply be made in some form.

5. The portion of Humanity must maintain or evolve this existing paradigm of stories, personification, association, and concepts for a long enough time or intensely enough to for a god to form. If the portion begins actively worshipping the latched concept as a god or similar extant being, one will form to fit the mold. Gods born from active worship are less prone to change and/or drift. If the portion does not actively worship the latched concept but still maintains it in some form, a god will eventually form. Gods born without active worship are more prone to change and adaptation to new paradigms.

[fanartfunart]

@sapony01​ commented on one of my Sides Swap posts: Can you explain their function and personality a bit better/explore them? Some are kinda obvious but some kinda confuse me

And, but of course! I’m totally open to it! (I’m mostly making another post for it because otherwise it’ll get absurdly long)

To summarize, the main idea is that they keep their personality and secondary traits they represent (Like Ego, Emotionality, ect), while further representing the Main Trait (like Anxiety, Creativity, ect)

The rest under the cut:

Anxiety

Roman: His key representation of Anxiety would befall closer to overemphasizing bravery and ignoring problems, and of course, insecurities. Thus a focus on Dangers you can Fight, and avoiding things you can’t. A emphasis on the Knight theme as a representation of bravery. He’d use ego and theatricality as a cover- a ‘be weird before people can accuse you of being weird because then it’s on purpose’ type logic.

Patton: The type of Anxiety where you emotionally over extending yourself because you’re scared of social-emotional repercussions. Caring so much that there’s no time and energy to care for yourself. Also a good representation of the Dad-Friend override for Anxiety.

Logan: A representation of over-analyzing the world like an outsider, that emotional distance that, while you’re curious of all the things around you, you can’t help but focus on the bad. Avoidance becomes a key factor and everything is categorized as bad or good off of exaggerated ‘proof’.

Janus: Very self protective to the point that things outside the Comfort Zone are almost always negative and overwhelming. Sarcasm, brittleness, and lying as a way to avoid things outside the Comfort Zone.

Remus: Overthinking creating an Anxious reaction. Basically seeing things in the shadows and over-analyzing interactions. Essentially worries cropping up out of the idea of various terrible things you can think of possibly coming at you from the smallest of hints to it. Also Knight theme because why not.

Creativity 

Logan: A more organized and analytic approach to creative works. Prone to being a literary critic. Draws from media to explain a point. As creativity would likely be the type of writer that hides details and metaphors in everything, focus on foreshadowing and the such.

Janus: Never lets anything be direct, people should be able to make their own conclusions about the meaning of the text. Probably thinks method acting is fun. The kind of actor/writer that easily shrugs on different types of characterizations that it makes other people dizzy seeing him switch between them.

Virgil: Your inner Emo Art Phase personified (everyone has at least one somewhere in there). Would prefer to be either a lesser known creator, or not let Thomas use his real name (thus Ghostwriter), because being Known is Awkward and his work can get too real, being known as a real person could detract from the art. Focus on art as an outlet for expressing negative feelings and stress relief.

Patton: Take your craft-happy relative who always hand-makes gifts and you’ve got Creativity Patton. Just wants to have fun and share the fun. Draws from positive emotional experiences for creativity because he wants to give everyone who sees said art a hug through said art. (Yes, his design is vaugely based off of Disney’s Pinocchio Geppetto aka Pinocchio’s dad.)

Remus: Take Remus as he is, and then take the ‘intrusiveness’ out of him. He basically has all the same horrifying ideas, but he doesn’t use them to make Thomas upset or anything, he’s just making stories.

Logic

Patton: Sorta a relaxed logic, understands not everything can be solved with a clean logical solution and that emotions hold a important space in people’s actions. Is that little logical voice when you’re super mad going ‘you’re mad because this, this, and this, and this is probably an overreaction to what you’re expressing your anger to, but it’s still valid.’ Prone to emotional fallacies though.

Virgil: You know any super cool teacher/professor who teaches you what the book says and then closes the book and says ‘ok now guess what, they’re also wrong, and I’m probably wrong too’?? Virgil as logic. (also why I kinda gave him the ‘tired + university hoodie’ style) Emphasizes learning from various sources and never trusting any of them 100%. Doesn’t trust his own information either, and it makes him stressed.... but like, he’s always stressed anyway so it’s chill. 

Roman: Bounces from topic to topic to learn. Very curious and easily inspired- also easily distracted. The definition of what a liberal arts education should be doing- aka, connecting seemingly unrelated topics. An Encyclopedia of very specific information. But, once he’s got a set of information it’s hard to let go of it, which makes it hard to adjust to being told he’s wrong.

Janus: Emphasis on how information is always being adjusted, and people’s biases are always present in studies and interpretation. Focuses on debunking things. Also kinda makes it hard to 100% be sure of any information presented.

Remus: Enjoys abusing the ‘technicalities’ in things. A little hard to follow in terms of train of thought. Disturbing Facts are still facts.

Morality

Virgil: Emphasis on sympathy and ‘do what you’d hope people would do for you’ moral arguments. Focus on social structure for the ground rules for moral behavior. That guy who’s constantly nice because he wished someone was nice to him, ya know? Hates the idea of being a bad person so much that it causes a lot of guilt and mistrust of the self.

Logan: Thinks of moral behavior as an equation of sorts. People do good things and that causes good things and that allows the social structure to work as it should, so do good things. Draws on philosophy and other social sciences to argue his points. Easy to readjust his thinking with proper reasoning.

Roman: Just wants people to be happy! And to be good! Emphasis on the reactions of others and how that effects your social/emotional well-being. Do good because it feels good kinda guy (he wants to be somebody’s Hero, ya know how it be).

Janus: Understands that morality is such a grey place that most anything can be seen as bad if you argue it enough. Places value on the self as someone deserving of feeling good as well, and bases moral values on what you as an individual wants to do. Also still kinda morally grey in general and probably shouldn’t always be listened to.

Remus: I Follow no Rules but My Own. Full rejection of social pressures. What precisely that means for his resulting moral standing is up to debate.

Deceit

Logan: Woorsst lair because he’ll twist truth and facts into it and it’s hard to pick out what’s the lie. Very blunt about his role as deception and its benefits and drawbacks. Very good about remembering which lies were told when and to who. Not the kind to lie more than seen necessary.

Roman: Focus on lying as acting and getting to where you need to go in life. ‘Fake it til you make it’ is his motto and it also includes mental states. Makes it hard to be honest about feelings. Very much a ‘lying to yourself’ aspect.

Virgil: Lying to avoid perceived negative repercussions. Lying still bothers him- as lying can also cause negative reactions. Focus on lying in reaction to events, less so on lying to the self. Not every lie is especially necessary though, knee-jerk reactions and fear make it very easy to lie. Lies of omission being the most utilized.

Remus: The opposite to Roman’s ‘lying to yourself’. Lying to others just to see their reactions. Uses being ‘blatantly honest’ about taboo subjects to seem honest about other things.

Patton: Lying to spare people’s feelings and being perceived well. Focus on lying or omitting the truth to seem like everything’s awesome.

Intrusive Thots

Patton: Makes emotional reactions overwhelmingly hard to gauge and control, results in terrifying thoughts and feelings with little control or filter. Gets stuck on ideas because of how hard he’s trying to push it away (yea know, like the white bear experiment).

Virgil: Thinks in problem solving, but the problems are of course, the thoughts of his own creation. Incessant about ‘solving’ the perceived problem.... not much else changes.

Logan: The Mad Scientist aesthetic is fun, what can I say? Takes facts and focuses on the scary parts, and then brings them back up on the slightest hint of relevance, and sometimes just Because. Some of it is curiosity taken into a frightening territory and gets overwhelming.

Janus: Emphasis on what happens if terrible things happened. Also likes using the ‘you’re gonna go to hell anyway just dive in with me’ argument. Occasionally pops up in a way that sounds almost nice, then turns horrifying very quickly.

Roman: Take Roman, make his ideas more Remus. He’s already Loud and Proud, just make him scarier, and a little more incessant and probably a little more arrogant for good measure.

[snowy-equinox]

The Backlash Against Eclectic Wiccans

Eclectic Wiccans are Wiccans who worship deities from other faiths in place of the God and Goddess, believing these other deities to be faces or parts of the God and Goddess. I’ve also heard them called neo-Wiccans, but I think that term is more tied to Wiccans who don’t initiate into a coven.  This kinda pisses some people of, for multiple reasons I will now explain! Eclectic Wiccan will be EW from here on, by the way. 

Educational Fun Fact: The belief that deities are the same energy, just perceived differently by different people is soft polytheism

As opposed to the idea deities are separate beings entirely, called hard polytheism

Disclaimer: I am not saying either side is right or wrong, this post will try to be as neutral as possible

Inserting Deities into Another Religion

Many people worry that since EW's are taking deities out of their cultural and mythological contexts, they are skewing the image of the deity.

For example, in Greek culture hospitality (Xenia) was a HUGE deal. If a EW takes Zeus as their stand in for the God, yet is a terrible host or guest, that would displease Zeus.

“But Wicca says nothing about hospitality!”

You think Zeus cares? He came from a culture where you treat your guests & hosts with kindness and respect. If you don't do the same, you'll make Him mad, and if you haven't done the proper research, you won't even know why.

If you're EW, you should be researching both Wiccan and [insert religious origin of your deities here] to make sure you are treating the deities you're working with with respect.

"Our deities are fake"

I was talking to a Wiccan a year ago, and she told me she thinks of it as a divine mosaic, with each deity coming together and contributing to the beautiful picture that is the God & Goddess.

That is a very nice image, but often it doesn't feel that way to hard polytheists. It feels more like their deities are a hologram.

Keep in mind that Wicca is a lot newer than any other of the pagan branches (except for maybe pop culture). If you worship Zeus, and suddenly someone comes by saying "Zeus is actually part of the God" it's strange, especially since the pagan gods don't fit into a monotheist or dualtheist view. It feels like you just had Zeus "stolen" from you, claimed by this new religion. It makes Him feel fake; He's not "real", just a part of this other deity you don't know. For devotees, this can be downright insulting. Wrong holidays Look, if a traditional Wiccan (someone who worships the God and Goddess) wants to take their Wheel of the Year and worship their gods on those holidays, okay fine. No, those aren’t the original gods for the holiday, but it doesn’t really irk me; I mean, at this point it’s kinda too late to make all new holidays around the Sabbats for Wicca, given everyone knows the Wheel now.

But if you take Zeus and celebrate Him with Yule.....You...you realize He already has holidays, right? I mean, yeah technically Heliogenna (Greek Winter Solstice holiday) is for sun deities, but at least Heliogenna has Greek themes and rituals, instead of Nordic ones that will be completely alien to Him. And hey, maybe you should do a quick thing for Helios while you’re at it.  ”But I only worship Zeus!”  Well.... Isolation

The non-Wiccan pagan gods are usually found in a whole group, called a pantheon. And usually, They’re all related to each other in some way. Remember when I said historical context is important?  This is too! The gods are meant to be worshiped together. By worshiping a single deity and removing Them from Their pantheon, you are ignoring the relationships They have formed with others. It’s like dating someone and then completely ignoring their friends and family and the context they provide.  Let’s go back to Zeus. Let’s say you worship Him at Heliogenna, but no one else. Firstly, you might offend the original Heliogenna deities, but you might also offend Zeus. His son is a solar god, and by not giving Him His due at His holiday, Zeus might be a little upset.  Because, as you would know if you researched Him, Zeus is very much a father figure. He loves His children, His devotees/followers, etc.  “Well a lot of people worship one or two gods!”  I worship Apollo and Artemis. All the other gods, I might honor once a year, but besides that it’s spotty.  But I still get messages from Dionysus and Hermes, Apollo’s buddies. Because I don’t worship in a vacuum.  Suggestions: Of course, if you want to avoid all that mess, you could also do what I do and just make your own personal rituals and holidays and adopt Greek holiday themes while ignoring the strict rigidity of the historical festivals; OR you could celebrate historical Zeus festivals and keep the Sabbats to celebrate the turning of the seasons. 

"Are You Even Still A Wiccan?"

Right now, Wicca is very trendy, which lends itself to this problem.

Western religion is usually defined by its deities (or lack thereof). If you worship Zeus as an aspect of the God, but don't actually worship the God in His wholeness.... Hard polytheists would classify you as a soft Greek polytheist, not a EW. After all, you worship the god Zeus, but not the Wiccan God.

You could argue that "Well, I still believe in the God", but the problem is that paganism =/= monotheistic.

Many Greek pagans (such as I) believe in the other deities, Wiccan god included.

But I am not Wiccan, because I don't worship Him.

The Wiccan Rede is another tenant of Wicca, and you might argue that that could make you Wiccan, but I have known Wiccans who don't follow it (confusing, I know) and, more importantly, I have met people who don't identify as Wiccans who do believe in the Wiccan Rede.

The truth is, hard polytheists have a hard time understanding what separates you from a soft non-Wiccan polytheist who simply has the same belief system as the Wiccan Rede.

I know, this last point is kinda hard to swallow for some. But labels and religion are very much more philosophy than concrete facts. Some people just shrug and say "I'm Wiccan because I say I am" which might leave a bad taste in others' mouths, leading them to believe you just wanna be trendy.