This will be an endnote in this series…

With regard to this,

Perhaps as a ‘he’ or a ‘she’.

This phrase, incorrect grammatically, is an allusion to what classic Greek scholars have referred to as the ‘anthropomorphic’ tendency of the Pre-Socratics. I must confess this was a little intentional on my part as the entire piece is a bit of a play (although I am not above gross editing mistakes-no reviewers for the paltry). The early Greeks did in fact refer to their Gods as ‘he’ and ‘she’ early on. Classic philology has analyzed the pre-classic Greek period of Homer and Hesiod as mythological and the transition into the Classic period as the move from mythos to logos, logic or rationality. However, not all scholars (Nietzsche and perhaps Heidegger come to mind) are in agreement with this analysis. In the future, much more concerning this topic will be discussed in further installments of this series but for now suffice to add that the transition to ‘rationality’ is coincidentally also a transition to neutrality. Rationality and its discoveries tend to come in lumps of ‘it’. While I would not disagree that some ‘anthropomorphic’ mythological projections were at work in early rhapsody I would also like to caution the thinker about adopting this reduction wholly. If, as Heidegger maintains, the Greeks thought ontologically early on it would not be a large stretch to think that the Greek fascination with ontos (being) could have already had its seeds in Homer and Hesiod. We must remember that the early Greeks did not have common and modern concepts to rely on as they gazed into the question of philosophy and origins (arche). If being was given wings in the archaic period, and later, it would not be out of the question to think that their judgments would not be conditioned by what might be thought as the post Greek ‘anthropomorphic’ fascination with neutrality. Neutrality, we must remember is, or could also be, thought as ‘anthropomorphic’. Early Greek thinking was not so committed to a pre-existing ontology. Therefore, it is not unthinkable that their musings may have been infused with gender and affect. In quickly dismissing their works as ‘anthropomorphic’ as opposed to ‘rational’ we may be denying ourselves an alternate way into their thinking. Additionally, I would bring to mind the works of Levinas that some may also be attempted to label ‘anthropomorphic’ but, again, the excess to his thought would be lost in this reduction. The original phrase is meant to bring the philological error, the overlap of mythos, ontos and the Other of Levinas into a bit of a succinct conundrum.