"Honor"

That it is so easy to become completely absorbed in studying and forget the rest of the world is one of the great profundities of college. I essentially spend all of my time studying. Even when I have nothing to do, I end up studying. Occasionally I go to math club meetings where... we study, albeit at a blackboard--the mathematician's surrogate for socializing. I have hardly read any news in a week or two. One of my neighbors is concerned that his mathematics classes are verging on obsession. In this context, I have an observation... about something I was studying.

Way back in high school, we read Beowulf. It is a fine monster story, with a compelling plot and some worthwhile insights on honor and the relation of the individual to society. Now, in humanities we read The Iliad. Again we have a fine story, but from the surface it is radically better than Beowulf. I would argue that it is a better and grander work, but that's a meaningless insight. The interesting point is that the themes and social values displayed in both works share stunning similarities.

Most significantly, honor is one of the central focuses of both. Defining "honor" is treacherous ground, but what I will suggest is that it possesses a moral quality. Acting "honorable" is perceived as good, while "dishonor" is bad. Society respects the honorable person, and especially respects his/her actions. So, I propose that honor is somewhat comparable to modern ideas of morals and ethics. Since these stories were written thousands of years ago, it seems that the problem of ethics has been of central concern to humans for all of our cognizant history. I would go even further to say that this is humanity's greatest problem: determining what is a desirable action.

On that note, humanity has truly changed its conception of ethics dramatically, even if the subject is our fundamental problem. The human of 1500-3000 years ago in Europe valued greatly the ability to slaughter other human beings. In both Beowulf and The Iliad a person's honor is most decided by how well they fare in battle, among other more complex factors. But simply put, we see that Hector is shamed by trying to escape a fateful battle with Achilles, and Achilles savagely mutilates him (ties into fate a lot too)--brilliant Achilles! Beowulf is worshipped because he can rip off the arms of bloodthirsty monsters, and is only fully honored after he faces the monster face-on without the advantage of surprise.

While my professor would deplore this kind of "social anthropology," as he calls it, it raises an interesting question. As a society, humans show considerable evolution since then. True, we have more advanced technology, letting a smaller minority cause more damage. However, the prevailing values of society are radically opposed to this kind of savagery. There is a certain natural selection in social values at work, I think. Where the "man-killer" of antiquity would be esteemed and feared, we hate and punish people who kill. Even members of the military--our modern "warriors"--are not accepted as representing universal values. There are many pacifists who typically deplore military combat, and even some people more radical, who would hold soldiers' actions against them. The point is, even though society may be more violent than ever, values have exhibited a distinctive pattern of natural selection. It's unreasonable to say that biological natural selection has occurred, but there is some sort of similar mechanism acting on society both consciously and unconsciously.

While I don't particularly enjoy reading mythology, it does raise some interesting questions about people that tend to be more fundamental than modern novels. I think that it's because they don't try as hard to force ideas through the text. It's a strange distinction.

I become characteristically rambly--probably because it is far too late for me to be up. And why am I up so late? Since I didn't have any studying to do, I wasted the entire evening studying. And then I wrote this garbage.