Did Neitsche fight the Bull of Heaven after maintaining his Sigma Volcel pledge and rejecting Ishtar the literal goddess of love and fertility? I think not.

[–] piggy@hexbear.net 16 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

Yeah it's crazy how uneducated these people are. This is literally a rough application of application of a 6th grade factoid. The type of anachronism that would be on a meme page for "smart guys" who are morons.

The only real argument against this is that typically literature that old has very strict frames that wouldn't make sense in terms of translating the super hero concept. For Gilgamesh his ultimate enemy is himself. In as much a lot of these types of stories are ancient cope, because their entire political valence is "I wish the king wasn't such an asshole". Chinese historical epics that are ancient and modern are similar. Chinese epics are really disappointing in their political valence because it's always, "The good guy by the act of resisting the government makes the Emperor change his mind and make life better for everyone." Water Margin is a perfect example.

It's really obvious why this happens historically, because you can't present the King a story where the King dies from his own incompetence, you must present him with a story where his failures are temporary and surmountable from his perspective. Even if he's not the main character his decisions in relation to the main character make him even more wiser and loved. In perspective it's actually an indictment of our own society. Ancient literature is bound by historical structure to not imagine alternatives to it's political problems, but modern stories are simply made by dullard believers. There's certainly some structural involvement but you're not gonna be executed unlike Sin-leqi-unninni (who actually changed the Epic of Gilgamesh to be a bit more "big brained" but in reality more supportive of the righteousness of kings).