The Beast - An Original Poem

A beast sits upon my chest

Its weight collapsing my ribs:

Constricting my lungs and squeezing my heart

With iron bands.

Fists rain blows on my head

As I silently howl into the depths of my mind.

No amount of force, or anger,

Will shake this beast.

Now he stalks familiar paths.

Clenched fists pound wood

And crumble concrete.

Glass explodes in a glittering spray:

A blur of motion hurls into the distance.

The beast roars:

A soundless noise thundering to the heavens above.

Fury radiates outwards in all directions:

A pulse of anger.

The world disappears:

The heavens draw near.

Rage is confined: but not diminished.

Now trapped behind invisible walls

The beast rampages within my mind:

Preying upon my thoughts.

My eyes open, my body relaxes.

The beast is contained.

For now.

Still the weight remains:

My temples pound from forces within:

It yearns to be free once again:

To vent its rage once more.

Air crushes my skull and presses on my eyes.

I raise thoughts to the heavens,

And seek forgiveness

For the beast in my head.

The End of Uranus - A Retelling of the Greek Myth

When the time came, Cronus and Atlas led the rush against Uranus at the head of their fellow Titans against their almighty father. The pounding of their righteous hearts matched the tread of their feet as they sprinted along the paths of the world, stopping beneath Uranus’ craggy heights upon the Plain of Heroes.

Awakened from a troubled sleep by the incoming Titans’ thundering, Uranus rushed to the cliffs, and there beheld a sight never again seen by God or man. Cronus: flanked by Helios and Atlas, at the head of his Titan army. Bathed in his brother’s golden light, it seemed almost as if Cronus was immersed in a great inferno of fiery wrath against his father: his enemy.

Powerful Atlas: towering head, shoulders, and mighty elbows above his fellows, gazed upon the far figure atop the mountain from beneath craggy brows drawn together against the morning light. Such was his height and breadth that the light of Helios struck only one side of his massive body, and left the other in darkness: a darkness Uranus would soon know.

Pointing one finger at Uranus, Atlas proclaimed for the entire world to hear, “Behold our Father, the Almighty Uranus, Lord of all the heavens, King of Earth, and Emperor of the universe. Tremble, for before you now stand not only your sons and daughters, but those same sons and daughters united! No more will we tolerate your ways, and no more shall our mother suffer you.”

There was no final, frantic charge against Uranus. He had nowhere to go. Instead, the Titans marched in ranks, led by Cronus, Atlas, and Helios. No warcries sounded, and no sound was made. No sound, save the voices of each and every Titan raised in a great song of death. No mortal ears could comprehend of such beauty and majesty; such was the dirge of the Titans all those millennia ago on the Plain of Heroes. A dirge for Uranus, their father, who was fated to die that day.

The sun of Helios was at its zenith when the Titan host crested the final rise, and faced Uranus, cloaked in stars and hooded in night. Cronus and Atlas approached, Helios lighting the way, whilst their brothers and sisters fanned out in a great circle around the three and Uranus. The formation in place, Uranus wasted no time creating a circle of his own before the Titans: a circle of nothing. Not even crafty Promethius, or Hecate: Queen of Darkness; could survive such a circle. The final battle was to be fought by Uranus and his most powerful of sons.

A leap, followed by a thunderous crash signaled the beginning of the conflict, as Atlas sprang to his father’s side. Darkness cloaked one, and twisting shadows revealed the bunched shoulders and bulging arms: corded sinew and heaving chest of the other. Matched in both height and size, Uranus and Atlas stood locked in battle: neither giving nor gaining ground. His great hands about each of Uranus’ wrists, Atlas fought to still his father’s movements. Uranus, for his part, was similarly engaged in attempting to escape the clutches of this, his strongest son. Unleashing power unlike anything seen before or since, Uranus caused a blast of air, solid as rock, to radiate outwards from himself in every direction. Such was the concussion of this blast that Atlas, mighty though he was, was knocked from his feet, tumbling through the air: finally caught by Helios.

Shaking off the pain and clearing his thoughts as a boar when first harried by the hounds, Atlas shrugged his massive shoulders, and, crouched low, moved slowly towards Uranus again: freshly reminded of his Father’s immense power. But this time he did not do so alone. Unsheathing his gleaming scythe from the heavy belt laid about his waist, Cronus stalked Uranus beside Atlas, while Helios kept the darkness at bay.

With no apparent signal, Atlas plowed into Uranus, and this time his monumental strength and size stood him in good stead. A shoulder in Uranus’ gut and mighty fists clenched together behind his father’s back powerful Atlas lifted Uranus from his feet and landed him in a heap beneath the mighty shoulders and breast of Atlas. Perceiving his advantage, Atlas placed one massive knee on each of Uranus’ forearms, and placed his broad hands upon his father’s chest. “Be still Father. You will never rise again,” he intoned.

“Darkness flees before the light of the son.” It was Helios who spoke, and as he did he clapped his hands together before his chest, with arms straight. Without a sound, a great light burst forth from the hands of Helios, and pulsed outward, pushing Uranus’ darkness before it. Once, twice, three times the light sped outwards, before destroying the Circle of Darkness and continuing outwards. Darkness was banished: there was only one thing yet to be done. The circle of Titans stood their ground: this was not their place to interfere.

Cronus next came forward, bringing his curved scythe with him. “Father, you gave us all life, but you have brought much pain upon us all, most of all our mother and elder brothers. For that we condemn you. You shall reap what you have sown.”

Helios placed a palm on either of his father’s great temples, and spoke to Uranus of light in an ancient tongue no longer remembered by any but the gods, and as his voice resonated across the mountainside, Uranus wept, for he remembered a time when he was not only darkness, but light as well. He remembered when Earth was young, and of all the ages in which he had loved her. He recalled each and every time a child had been born, and the beauty of his children: the Titans. Uranus wept also for the Cyclopes, and those of the hundred-arms, whom he had abandoned, and cast into Tartarus; for they too were his children. And he wept for himself, for Uranus knew he would die when he had only just realized the depth of his longing to live once again. His son, Cronus, would kill him.

With one mighty swing of his scythe, Cronus unmanned Uranus, and cast his seed into the raging seas far below the cliffs. Atlas, shouldering Uranus’ weight, stood tall and still for a moment, lost in sorrow, before throwing Uranus, as an athlete heaves a stone, out, out, into the skies. Each droplet of Uranus’ lifeblood scattered to a different corner of the sky, and points of light grew from the center, surrounded by darkness. So passed Uranus, Lord of the Universe. Light found within even the blackest darkness.

Franklin on God, Man, and Life

Benjamin Franklin declared himself a Deist: someone who believes in God, but doesn’t believe God actively works in the world. Deists believe that God created the world, but then decided to ‘sit back’ and watch how it turned out. Deism was based on the idea of reason: an extension of the Enlightenment. God created the world, is all-powerful, all-knowing, and is the ultimate judge of our actions. In all these qualities Deists are in complete agreement with the other sects of Christianity. The difference lies in that the Deists’ god doesn’t interact with us or the world, as opposed to being intrinsically involved in everything.

It seems that to Franklin, man is, or should be, ruled by reason. Man is neither naturally good or bad, but will act good or bad depending on his ability to reason. One who reasons correctly and well will act in good ways, while one who does not reason, or allows his desires to cloud his judgments will act badly, or contradict God’s directions. Through reason, man has the ability to make himself better, but only so long as he obeys reason rather than desires.

According to Franklin, God’s role in our lives is to judge our lives, and reward or punish us as deserved. Franklin declared temperance, avoiding meaningless conversations, order, resolve, frugality, hard work, sincerity, treating others well, being moderate in all things, cleanliness, tranquility, chastity, and humility admirable qualities that God would look kindly upon. As a Deist, Franklin did not believe God would directly interfere or act within the world, but he did believe that the actions and behaviors prohibited or encouraged in Revelations were handed down from God, and as such should be obeyed.

Franklin’s beliefs are similar to the Puritan’s in that he believed hard work would be rewarded by God, and that we should obey God in all things. He also shared many of the same beliefs as the Puritan’s in terms of what God is. The main difference between Benjamin Franklin’s and the Puritans’ beliefs was that Franklin didn’t believe God is an active participant in our world, while the Puritans believed He is everywhere. The Puritans also believed in predestination, while Franklin seems to have believed our actions would be judged at the conclusion of our lives, rather than before they began.

Is Beauty Purely in the Eye of the Beholder?

A standard definition of beauty as it relates to perception often proves hard to come upon. Some will tell you some things are universally beautiful (such as a flower or a child), while others will say beauty results purely from a person’s personal preferences: that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

The Encarta World Dictionary defines beauty as “the combination of qualities that make something pleasing and impressive to listen to or touch, or especially to look at.” * This leaves the question open to interpretation: are there some things that possess qualities to make them universally pleasing, or is ‘pleasing’ a purely subjective term?

*Encarta® World English Dictionary © 1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Developed for Microsoft by Bloomsbury Publishing Plc. 

In discussion we decided that our cultures shape our needs and create our wants. Therefore, our cultures and individual ‘subcultures’ give beauty a personalized shape and form. Beautiful to someone in America does not necessarily mean beautiful to someone somewhere else on earth, or even to different people in the same area. For instance, using a somewhat simple example, in America the stereotypical ‘definition’ of a beautiful woman hardly matches that of Japan, Polynesia, African countries, or even that of America some years ago. Our perception of beauty has morphed over the years from one shape or form to another largely without conscious thought or effort. Even asking two people living in the same place what their idea of a ‘perfect woman’ would result in vastly different descriptions. All of our experiences and cultural stimuli have affected what we perceive as beautiful, even though we might not realize it. Our perception of beauty, at least as it refers to certain things, exists as a byproduct of our cultures, and varies from one person to another: one culture to another.

According to Socrates, there exist some definite truths in this world, if only we can define them fully. Is beauty, or at least some part of beauty, one of these things? Of course, no concrete answer to this question exists. Certain objects or aspects of life are popularly thought of as beautiful: flowers, sunny days, smiles, and sunsets, to name a few. While these things all would seem ‘definitely’ beautiful, and answer the question, the question of these objects’ universal beauty remains.

Is a flower beautiful by nature whether or not someone perceives it as beautiful? To a man dying of thirst, the most beautiful thing on earth would consist of a simple cup of water, and he would probably overlook a flower, while someone raised thinking flowers poisonous and harmful may view them as frightening or horrible: ugly, in other words. But does this disprove the statement, or only clarify the possibility of beauty regardless of perception or culture? Is a flower, ultimately, any less beautiful because of the greater situational beauty of water? Does the perception of a flower as ugly make it actually any less beautiful, or render the perception false? No concrete answer exists, but in my opinion some inherently beautiful things do exist. The true question remains whether or not we as people can grasp that beauty, and understand the beauty regardless of our cultural perceptions of beauty.

Our cultures and psyches shape and define what we define as beautiful, as beauty consists of something ‘pleasing’ to our senses: both a want and a need. However, inherently beautiful things exist regardless of these perceptions and the ‘eye of the beholder,’ if only the beholder can accurately see through his culture and truly see the beauty.

Censorship for the Youths

People disagree greatly on ideas of censorship for different groups in society. Most people will agree on the necessity of censorship for young children, but not all. People mainly disagree on the issue of censorship for the ‘youth:’ teenagers and young adults, and adults themselves.

Children possess the most readily and easily molded minds of all people. Young children often imitate what they see and hear without knowing the meaning or reasons behind it. Children also retain these behaviors, which become habits, and they become incorporated into the child’s character. For instance, a child may not know the meaning of many swear words or other vulgarities, but if they hear them will likely repeat them. Repeated use of these words ingrains the words into the child’s vocabulary, and become commonly and easily used by the time the child becomes a youth.

For this reason most parents, older siblings, and other members of the community see fit to censor themselves and others around small children. Knowing the susceptibility of children, people seek to shield them from ‘bad’ influences by censorship. Most people live by the idea that “what’s good (or ok) for me isn’t good for them.” Adults almost universally censor children from many things such as language, violence, sex, drugs, and vulgarities: things youths and adults often find amusing or entertaining. Young children don’t often complain about this censoring, as they probably don’t even realize its effects on their lives most of the time.

Censorship also extends to youths in the United States, until the ages of seventeen and eighteen of certain things: excessive violence, drug references, sex, and some profanity. Youths possess the experience to know they are being censored, and are being censored by federal law rather than elders ‘looking out’ for them. Youths also think themselves old enough to believe they know the best choices for themselves without others deciding for them: they don’t need someone to censor them, but can censor themselves instead. Most adults believe a youth reaches a point where they can do so: seventeen and eighteen, but to many youths, this comes later than necessary.

There is only one group of people in our society (the United States) not censored: adults. Adults (people over the age of eighteen) can access anything they wish so long as it doesn’t break any laws. Some people (both youths and adults) disagree with this, and believe in universal censoring of certain things: such as instructions on how to build a bomb. While it may seem a betrayal of our freedoms to take away our access to anything, in reality wrongdoers lose access to the information, and the average person loses nothing. An honest person has no need for bomb-building instructions, so it makes no difference if they’re available on the internet or not. A potential terrorist, on the other hand, has great interest in the instructions, but should not have access to them. Logic concludes that the instructions should not exist in an accessible form, because those who would access and use the material should not have access, and to it makes no difference to those who would not use the information.

Certain material should definitely not be available for young children to access: they need to be censored for ‘their own good.’ Youths also should be censored from some things: but the age at which they become ‘uncensored’ may be questionable: by the time someone can question the censorship, should they be censored? Censorship should extend to all people in terms of material released for purely harmful purposes (as in the case of bomb instructions), but adults should not be censored from information or other material: their judgment has to be trusted.

“The obstinate man does not hold opinions; they hold him.” - Samuel Johnson

An obstinate man both holds and is held by his opinions. If he did not hold his opinions he would not possess the opinions, while if his opinions did not hold him he would not qualify as an obstinate man. To truly have an opinion, and to truly exist as an obstinate man, you must hold your opinion and your opinion must hold you.

An opinion manifests itself as a view or belief you have about an idea or aspect of life. Therefore, for an obstinate or stubborn man to have an opinion, he must hold his opinion; correct in his belief or not. In this instance, the words “have” and “hold” read synonymously. The obstinacy of the man in question further reinforces the strength of opinion, and so the strength of his hold on it. For example, if a man holds the opinion that President Bush acts like a fool, he holds the opinion that the President acts foolishly. The strength of his opinion, in accordance with his obstinacy, corresponds to the strength of his hold on his opinion. The idea of a man holding his opinions also allows for the revision or change of these opinions. If a man holds his opinions, he controls them rather than them controlling him.

Opinions also hold a man, and especially an obstinate man. To have a belief in something, the belief must at least partially grip and intrigue you. If an idea doesn’t do that, the likelihood that you will develop much of an opinion about it diminishes. Therefore, an idea must hold you before you can have an opinion about it. Once you have an opinion, it must continue to hold you in order for you to hold firm in your belief. Were you no longer held by the idea, and your opinion, your defense of it would falter, as you no longer believed it yourself. For example: a man who eats meat versus a vegetarian. Both have an opinion about eating meat: one for it and one against it. If the two men discussed or argued about their beliefs, and belief of one of the men no longer held him, he would quickly surrender to the other’s argument, as he would have no reason to defend his stance. He would lose the argument as a result of his opinion not holding him. To be obstinate without having a firm belief in your opinion cannot occur: to defend without tire your belief requires it to mean something to you. It must exercise a hold over you.

A man must hold his opinions and his opinions must hold him for a combination of the two above reasons. To have the opinion at all, he must hold it and it must hold him. To defend his opinion, the opinion must hold the man, and he must hold the belief in order to call the opinion his own. For example, though probably a very common one when discussing this type of question: the idea of slavery as it pertained to the pre-Civil War South. A White child born in the South would not come into the world with the opinion that Africans were meant to be slaves, or that he was better than they. As the child grew, the opinion caught hold of him through various aspects of his life and experience. The belief of White dominance over Blacks would catch hold of him. Over time, he would adopt this belief as his own, rather than only his society’s and parents’ beliefs. The young adult would believe that Africans were meant to exist as slaves. The opinion would begin to hold him, with his also holding it.

Opinions rely on being held by and holding the believer. Neither can exist without the other. In the case of an obstinate man, these holds are much stronger than those of a man of neutral opinion. Holding an opinion allows the man control over the opinion, if only he can break its hold over himself. The hold of an opinion over a man provides him with the strength to defend it against those of conflicting views.

Learning Virtue and Viciousness

From birth to death we learn many things, both ‘good’ and bad’, whether we realize it or not at the time. These include both virtues and ‘viciousnesses.’ Society and culture, along with what we experience throughout our lives, mold our thinking and shape the virtuous and vicious sides of us. Free will does still apply in this situation, as men all decide what stimuli and suggestions to respond to and imitate: deciding their own definitions of ‘virtue’’ and ‘vicious’.

Virtue commonly corresponds to moral ‘goodness’ and righteousness. All societies have some sort of moral structure: it defines civilizations and cultures. Without a moral goal to strive for, men would have no reason to act in any other manner than directly benefited their own wellbeing. As a result, societies bombard their members from infancy to death with messages of morally correct actions and behaviors. For instance, every person in the western world probably knows the story of Crying Wolf. This story describes the dangers of telling untruths, and so reinforces honesty as a moral value. Western culture constantly reinforces and introduces these messages in bedtime stories told to children, as well as in movies, books, and lessons passed from parents to their children. These stories and fables all attempt to teach what is morally good and virtuous.

Just as men can learn virtue, so can we learn viciousness. Vicious, the opposite of virtue, isn’t taught in the same way as virtue, because in most cases society discourages viciousness. Nevertheless, every day ideas and images of viciousness invade our thinking, though we may not agree with the ideas. Through learning virtues, we learn their opposites: ‘viciousnesses’. These can appeal to different people to varying extents, and affect behavior as a result, even though society frowns upon such actions or beliefs. Modern movies, television shows, and novels sometimes have thieves, vigilantes, assassins, gangsters, and other criminal personalities as main characters. Because of the story, people become caught up in the action and plot, and forget that while the characters may seem noble or righteous in the story, in the real world, the characters the moviegoer, watcher, or reader ‘roots for,’ exist as nothing more than a terrorist, murderer, or criminal. These themes occur constantly in the media, and while our society condemns all the portrayed actions and behaviors, we absorb the ideas nonetheless. To highly simplify the point, a man might think, “If I think I’m right, why should I follow the rules? Why shouldn’t I take matters into my own hands and do what I think I should?” While this may seem well and good, and in fact may be, society will never encourage this type of thinking, because if everyone thought this way the world would end up chaotic. Society, without directly meaning to, teaches us all about ‘viciousnesses’.

Free will becomes a factor in individuals deciding their understanding of virtue, and vicious, and which to emulate or act upon. A man learns both throughout his life, and so society shapes his opinions and views, but he also can discern what he wants, and how he wants to go about doing it. A man in need of money knows, though his society’s values, the virtuous choice is to work hard, or he could steal the money instead. He knows the difference between virtue and vicious, but can still decide whether or not he wants to act virtuous or vicious depending on the situation. We cannot control what we society and culture teach us, as society permeates everything and everyone, but we can control which ‘shoulder-angel’ we listen to.

The Most Influential Aspects of Ancient Rome in Today’s World

It is my belief that some of the most influential aspects of ancient Rome still seen in the world today are the system of law, the spread of Christianity, and the architecture. The Romans system of law is the base of most systems in the western world, and the Greek-inspired architecture is seen in many buildings, including the Lincoln memorial, and other government buildings. The Romans accomplished many things during the rise and fall of the empire, and so has gained immortality through its influence.

Under the Roman law system, all people were equal in court, and all people were considered innocent until proven guilty. The Roman government also allowed people to use evidence to support their cases. There were also rules and regulations to ensure that trials were as fair as possible. This system has become the foundation of many; the U.S. uses all four of those aspects, among others. The rest of the world is gradually turning to these same principles, with some exceptions, or course.

The Romans also helped Christianity to spread. At first Christians were persecuted, but still they gained power. Finally, Constantine stopped that persecution, and converted to the religion. Later, Theodosius I made Christianity the state religion. From this came the Pope: leader of the church, but also a powerful politician. His two ceremonial keys stood for two kinds of power: one religious, and one political. The pope controlled the lives of the masses, and all leaders looked to him for consent, and advice.
The Romans have left us remnants of great buildings and temples that have greatly influenced our own modern architecture. The Greeks were the first to use columns: Corinthian, Doric, and Ionic. The Greeks developed new ways to construct massive structures, and the Romans built on this: using columns, domes, and high ceilings to make their mark on the world.

The Roman Empire lasted about five hundred years, but the legacy of that highly advanced civilization has survived millennia. Indeed, without the Romans, life as we know it would be vastly different. Our courts are regulated, and controlled by many strict rules. We can be assured of a fair trial, and of the right to defend ourselves, no matter the evidence against us. Christianity was brought in by the Roman elite, and went from existing on the fringes, to being the largest single religion on earth. Our buildings and homes use many features of Roman engineering and architectural skill. Though centuries have passed since the Roman Empire was overthrown, it lives on in the bedrock of our own civilization.

The Greatest Legacy of the Greeks

It is my belief that the greatest legacy of the ancient Greeks is their system of government: democracy. The Greeks of Athens introduced a system whereby all citizens could vote, officials were elected, and regular people had a voice in government, as well as the freedom to dispute the choices of officials. The Athenians developed democracy four hundred-fifty years before the birth of Christ, and the ideas are seen today in countries around the world.

In ancient Athens, all citizens could vote, and they voted on everything from trivial disputes to whether or not to go to war. While only a portion of the population, free men born in Athens, could vote, it was really not as lopsided as one would think. The Athenian democracy was in no way perfect, but no government is; people just have to do the best they can.

Men were the ones who would go to war, men were the ones who would build the next great temple. Women were not included in government because they did not participate (either by choice or law) in many of the things voted upon; they were mostly concerned with running the household. This is not to say that everything was equal, because it wasn’t, but women were not shut out because they were considered inferior; the patron deity of Athens was Athena, a goddess. Also, some women were able to rise to great fame: the Oracle at Delphi being one of the best examples.

Slaves were not what they were in colonial Europe and America. They were men captured in battle, or men who sold themselves into slavery in order to live in Athens: their sons would become citizens. Slaves were not considered animals, but neither were they considered men who deserved the right to vote, or hold office: there was a reason they were slaves.

In the ancient Athens, the people elected all officials of the city and country. A leader was not guaranteed a position after the following election, which encouraged them to do things for the better of the people: this would get them votes. Officials were constantly under scrutiny from other politicians as well as the general population.

All these interlinked groups served to provide what we now call “checks and balances.” No one group could, normally, dominate the others. The diplomats held generals in check, and everyone else watched the diplomats. The only group somewhat above this “mess” of politics was the priests. For the most part, they were able to carry out their sacrifices and religious duties in relative peace, and immunity.

A common occurrence in Athens was for ordinary people to engage in debates with their leaders, and other elected officials. What this did for the populous was show them a bit of the thinking, and strategy behind what the official was doing. If he had to explain his actions to hundreds of people, and convince them that it was the better choice over any alternative, you can bet that most officials were making good decisions, or at least believed that they were, even if it turned out to be folly. Without the support of the people, the politicians could do nothing, and if the people believed in what you were telling them, you stood a better chance of them following you. What this process did for the politicians was to force them to make decisions that were not rash, and that they could defend. A general couldn’t just send men to war without thinking about it; he had to weigh the pros and cons to it, and then be able to defend that point when assaulted by the people.

The Athenians developed a government so advanced that it is in use today, and is used as the template for every new government, or governments seeking to reform. The idea of the people having a voice in government is seen through our elections every four years. The people elect all the officials of the United States government, none excluded. The press takes the role of the debater of ancient Greece. The papers require that the politicians be able to back up all decisions, and ensures that our government thinks long and hard before taking any steps. Four hundred-fifty years before the birth of Jesus Christ, and more than two and a half millennia ago, the Greeks of Athens created a system of government that profoundly influenced today’s world: their greatest legacy.

Which Came First, Fear or the Monster?

I believe that fear came first, and that the monster was created to explain that fear. For instance, Cyclopes' were feared by many people as man-eating giants. I have read that that fear was probably based on elephant skulls that were found somewhere. The holes in the skull for the air ducts in the nose were probably mistaken for one huge eye socket. By creating the Cyclopes, people were able to put a name and body to their fear, that of a huge animal that would look unlike one they had ever seen before. Sea serpents arose from fear of shipwreck. Ancient Greeks had no wish to sink, and when ships did sink, and often in the same places, sea creatures were thought up that caused whirlpools, or strange tides that are now explained by science as natural forces.

Anything that people do not understand, or fear, is usually nameless and faceless. To give your fear a face, and a substance, makes it less frightening than if it is undefined. A thing with a body can be killed, and a thing with a face can be recognized. On the other hand, if you don’t know what it is that you fear, it is all the more terrible because it is immaterial, and so invincible.

People saw lightning, and believed that a God was angry, and was throwing bolts to punish whatever offended them. In Norse legend, Frost giants would eat people who strayed too far from their homes, or who were lost in the wilds. This was probably to explain the people who froze to death, or vanished into blizzards never to be seen again. All monsters can be traced back to some fear, or some element of nature not understood. Fear of the dark probably began when pioneers would camp, and wolves would circle just outside the light cast by the fire. The dark was dangerous at that time, and so was feared, and still is by many.

Monsters were very real to the people they threatened, because they had no better explanation for people vanishing, thunder, lighting, fires, blizzards, volcanoes, and the unknown. If we could travel back thousands of years with our knowledge of science, we could manipulate any natural phenomenon to our advantage, and some priests and advisors of the times did. Omens were read, and predictions cast, based on the fears and beliefs of the people.

Heroes arose from fear. Heroes were the personification of conquering your fears. A hero could kill a cyclops, or a giant. A hero could, at any moment, sweep down out of the sky and save a maiden from a sea monster. Heroes gave people hope. You could be about to die, but still hope to survive because some superhuman person could save you. Someone could find you as you wandered in the snow, and save you from the Frost giants, or travel to Death, and return.

Heroes were the direct opposite of fears, and so sprung from them. Where there was fear, there were heroes. They saved people from their fear, real or not. A hero could be someone who stood guard against wolves, or killed a bear before it could harm you.

If fears were evil, then heroes were the ultimate of good. Many were the offspring of gods, because people had to believe that their gods were good, and if not, that a hero could thwart them. Heroes were often saints, men of holy stature, blessed by God. That showed that, if you were good enough, you could become a saint, or a hero, and be precious to God. This helped to keep people moral.

If you believed that if you were good, you stood a better chance with God than if you were bad, you had good incentive to be good. People believed that to be welcomed into heaven, or the Elysian fields, or paradise, you had to be righteous by the standards of your religion, and by yourself. If you failed to do that, you could usually count on eternal torment, which was a good reason not to sin.

Heroes were hope, and an ideal for people to aspire to. Anyone could, and can, become a hero. Heroes banished fear, and killed the monsters, and were loved by the gods.