Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
Excuse me, but I'm very unfamiliar with marxist theory beyond the big points. I also think its unfair to reply a 1 line question with a full book. Would you mind being a bit more verbose in order to share your insights?
It appears only to be about citing the history of the "history repeats itself" cliche in the first footnote. It's sometimes attributed to Marx, who attributes it to Hegel. Other than that I don't think they intended to reference Marxism, but only to provide a source for the quote.
Clear answer. Do you mind sharing why? As an example, is there any difference to you betwen Manhood Ritual and hazing, or do you consider it to be the same?
Because not all men want to be identified as whatever is recognized as manhood in those rituals. The question is more what would be the need in society and why it would have to be gendered at all? I'm all for more symbolism and rituals that enhance one's inclusion in society though.
Well its up to us to define these symbols, and make certain that 1) most males would be ok to be identified with them and 2) to make alternatives for those who don't. In my experience its more a continum than a binary thing.
Why do we need society to be gendered? Very good question. Masculine and Feminine symbols are found in the majority of cultures, because they allow its people to build an identity and act act on it. We are not stone age people anymore, but even 'advanced' western societies have demographic constrains to deal with. I would also note that most biological men are at advantage in situations where physical strength is a factor. I do want the majority of males and females to behave differently in a myriad of situations.
Of course I do not think that every symbols should be feminine and masculine, and my goal is not to push some archaic-conservative agenda. However I have lots of doubts about the gender-bender-for-all thing. People kill their kings when they dont know how to kill their gods.
This is a very literal understanding of my comment, it almost sound like a strawman. Of course I do not mean 'theft and rape'. I'm fully aware that the world changed since Indo-European barbarism. The thing is, culture evolved faster than nature. The underlying reasons for this 'manhood ritual' are probably not strictly economic.
Are you the type of person who can't understand why Jordan Peterson and all are so popular with young men, without wanting to deal the underlying tendencies which caused their popularity in the first place? What is your perspective on manhood in 2021? What should young men aspire to? How should we deal with our old symbols of virility, and how can we replace them to the benefits of all?
It is interesting that the young men often took on wolf clothes. Romulus the mythical founder of Rome was said to have been raised by a wolf. In a different story told by Plutarch, Romulus is fathered by Hercules after he wins a dice game. The Koryos determined their leader through the outcome of a dice game.
Could this be a hint, that the founding of Rome was by a band of Koryos Teenagers ?
Am I the only one who finds this article extremely odd and suspicious?
I'd never heard of this concept of "kóryos" before, and even though the article is extensively referenced, there are somehow no references in the first paragraph introducing the subject matter nor a section regarding when this supposed idea was introduced into historical research or how it developed.
Then, what makes this article much more suspicious in my view, is that it was essentially written fully from scratch in one revision by a single user less than a year ago [0]. And following this, a huge red flag is that a significant number of the very few internal links [1] to this page were only added by the very user that first wrote this page [2-5].
I'm sorry, I really hope that (best case scenario) this is a legitimate concept, and the page was created by someone who happens to be doing a PhD on the subject—though in that case it reeks of violating the "no original research rule" of Wikipedia. In the worst case scenario, this is either a personal fantasy of the author or something being spread with some ulterior motive.
Article say proto indo european but I don't hear any similar slavic stem. We did until recently have "vojna" (2 year mandatory military service) but that's quite far from "koryos".
Looking through their list of existing word descendants, the only one I recognize is Greek κοίρανος "koiranos". It also cites Old English "here" which I recognize from Beowulf in the kenning heregrima "war-mask".
There are some others in languages I don't know at all (Persian, Lithuanian). The derivation seems authentic but it seems to have left only very scattered traces.
I work in a related area of historical-comparative linguistics and I am familiar with much of the literature cited in this Wikipedia article. I would say that that at the Proto-Indo-European level, this article represents pretty mainstream views that have been common in the literature for decades. Where some could quibble with the article is its mention of a lot of much later phenomena in various societies that don’t necessarily go back to the early Indo-European tradition.
Thanks, that's good to know. It may well be that even though this happens to be that user's pet project it is nevertheless thoroughly referenced and legitimately encyclopedic. I do hope that is the case.
Page 93 of this [0] source (cited in the article) appears to verify the topic of the article.
Certain Wikipedia authors finalize their articles in their sandbox and then copy it over, which was done in this case [1] with the sandbox including 180 edits and work over several weeks.
As introductory paragraphs are a summary of the article, they don't have to contain any citations [2], certain editors who only write long-form Wikipedia articles are fond of that style.
Entering "Koryos" in Google Scholar brings up more sources, no sources show up when using the diacritic.
23 comments
[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 58.4 ms ] threadhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/18t...
Why do we need society to be gendered? Very good question. Masculine and Feminine symbols are found in the majority of cultures, because they allow its people to build an identity and act act on it. We are not stone age people anymore, but even 'advanced' western societies have demographic constrains to deal with. I would also note that most biological men are at advantage in situations where physical strength is a factor. I do want the majority of males and females to behave differently in a myriad of situations.
Of course I do not think that every symbols should be feminine and masculine, and my goal is not to push some archaic-conservative agenda. However I have lots of doubts about the gender-bender-for-all thing. People kill their kings when they dont know how to kill their gods.
Are you the type of person who can't understand why Jordan Peterson and all are so popular with young men, without wanting to deal the underlying tendencies which caused their popularity in the first place? What is your perspective on manhood in 2021? What should young men aspire to? How should we deal with our old symbols of virility, and how can we replace them to the benefits of all?
I'd never heard of this concept of "kóryos" before, and even though the article is extensively referenced, there are somehow no references in the first paragraph introducing the subject matter nor a section regarding when this supposed idea was introduced into historical research or how it developed.
Then, what makes this article much more suspicious in my view, is that it was essentially written fully from scratch in one revision by a single user less than a year ago [0]. And following this, a huge red flag is that a significant number of the very few internal links [1] to this page were only added by the very user that first wrote this page [2-5].
I'm sorry, I really hope that (best case scenario) this is a legitimate concept, and the page was created by someone who happens to be doing a PhD on the subject—though in that case it reeks of violating the "no original research rule" of Wikipedia. In the worst case scenario, this is either a personal fantasy of the author or something being spread with some ulterior motive.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=K%C3%B3ryos&oldid...
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinks...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fianna&type=revis...
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Maruts&type=revis...
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crypteia&type=rev...
[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ephebos&type=revi...
There are some others in languages I don't know at all (Persian, Lithuanian). The derivation seems authentic but it seems to have left only very scattered traces.
Certain Wikipedia authors finalize their articles in their sandbox and then copy it over, which was done in this case [1] with the sandbox including 180 edits and work over several weeks.
As introductory paragraphs are a summary of the article, they don't have to contain any citations [2], certain editors who only write long-form Wikipedia articles are fond of that style.
Entering "Koryos" in Google Scholar brings up more sources, no sources show up when using the diacritic.
[0] https://sci-hub.do/10.1163/157407706778942312
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Alcaios/Kory...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:LEADCITE