Thank you so much for this. It also seems that Hiccup’s continuing story in HTTYD 2 and 3 are useful as well in this, because he does continue to “man up” in the colloquial sense. It seems like all the archetypes converge at the end of the path, where each leans into its own archetype so hard that it gains the capability to solve the problems more easily solved by a different archetype.
You’re right there are many good masculine archetypes, and not anyone can be anything, but there is (and should be) a clear hierarchy. The warrior is deservedly at the top, because when a society is threatened by its greatest evils, he is the one on whom existence depends. It bodes ill for a society if the status of a warrior is diminished, because then less men will aspire to it, and now who will stand in the breach?
But the warrior is NOT traditionally at the top. It is at the right hand, yes, but the philosopher-priest is at the actual top. Consider the hindu caste system (not its hereditary nature, but just the categories): the brahmins are priest-scholars, and below them are the Kysherahs(spelling off), who are the warriors. Then there are the artisans and menial laborers below.
It would differ between cultures, but I think it is healthier for the warrior to be at the top than the philosopher-priest. If boys generally aspire to be warriors, it builds them up, even if they don’t fully succeed. But when you have the whole population aspiring to be philosopher-priests, I think you would end up with an even greater madhouse than is present-day academia.
Oh, I agree that everyone can't be philosopher-priests. The problem here (and it is an ancient one, see Plato's Republic) is how to rightly apportion honor so that all spots are filled by the people best suited to fill them. The warrior is needed in the breech, to enforce the guidance of the philosopher-priest. And the philosopher-priest should not be a weakling either.
Thank you so much for this. It also seems that Hiccup’s continuing story in HTTYD 2 and 3 are useful as well in this, because he does continue to “man up” in the colloquial sense. It seems like all the archetypes converge at the end of the path, where each leans into its own archetype so hard that it gains the capability to solve the problems more easily solved by a different archetype.
You’re right there are many good masculine archetypes, and not anyone can be anything, but there is (and should be) a clear hierarchy. The warrior is deservedly at the top, because when a society is threatened by its greatest evils, he is the one on whom existence depends. It bodes ill for a society if the status of a warrior is diminished, because then less men will aspire to it, and now who will stand in the breach?
But the warrior is NOT traditionally at the top. It is at the right hand, yes, but the philosopher-priest is at the actual top. Consider the hindu caste system (not its hereditary nature, but just the categories): the brahmins are priest-scholars, and below them are the Kysherahs(spelling off), who are the warriors. Then there are the artisans and menial laborers below.
It would differ between cultures, but I think it is healthier for the warrior to be at the top than the philosopher-priest. If boys generally aspire to be warriors, it builds them up, even if they don’t fully succeed. But when you have the whole population aspiring to be philosopher-priests, I think you would end up with an even greater madhouse than is present-day academia.
Oh, I agree that everyone can't be philosopher-priests. The problem here (and it is an ancient one, see Plato's Republic) is how to rightly apportion honor so that all spots are filled by the people best suited to fill them. The warrior is needed in the breech, to enforce the guidance of the philosopher-priest. And the philosopher-priest should not be a weakling either.
Thank you for your essays. I enjoy reading them and find each of them thought provoking.
Thank you for reading. I'm glad you enjoy them.