Hmm, well, no. Typically the hero is subject to fate or Fortune, such as in The Aeneid and Greek epics and has no 'choice' but to succumb.

Historically perhaps, but the way things are now the only platform for "great men" to live up to that potential is probably politics, and even then if you have any radical opinions you won't make any ground there.

Also, check out Tennyson's Ulysses.

You'd like it. It, in some senses, reinforces your thought. Im sure it's online

>>7449744
Yes, But Achilles is different in this regard, and that, I think, gives the philosophical value to The Illiad.

I'm not so much asking if men have free-will or can choose their own fate. Rather, I'm curious if all men of note (that is, men who possess such obvious talents that they aware of their greatness) internally debate between these two paths or fates.

Do I expose myself and live a fast life in return for fame and glory?

Or

Do I live a simple life and seek a zen-like happiness ?

>>7449770
I would argue that it's still possible in aesthetic fields. Amy Whinehouse would be a example. She made the same choice as Achilles.

It's also interesting to note that Achilles regrets his decision in the Odyssey. Specifically, the book where Odysseus travels the underworld. Achilles says something along the lines of, "Fame is no good to a dead man."

Achilles is subject to Fortune as well, my man.

But, that aside, why must a life of glory be 'fast'? Can't one have a life of glory and still live simply?

>>7449672
There is a lot more to it, for example a modern Achilles could roam the seas of South East Asia freeing sex slaves and butt fucking pirates, but still die in obscurity, or choose the path of political writer and live safely while possibly attaining as much fame as Marx.

Did Homer do battle for his fame?

>>7449820
See my post, >>7449792

I should have worded my question differently: Do all great men consider these two fates as opposing possibilities?

And I'm not sure if they can overlap. Some days, it seems obvious that they can. Other days, I hear or read something that convinces me otherwise.

The dichotomy seems to appear again and again throughout philosophy and literature. Think west / east. Or ego-centric / selflessness etc

Even those who might be said to be counter examples seem to fall short of certainty. Think Spinoza. One might say he sought the quiet life, all alone grinding lenses in his home. But when you really think about it, he really chose the former. He wrote extremely abrasive pieces of philosophy for his time. He was almost executed for it. In the end he died young not because of his political position, but that's beside the point. We know of him because of the risks he took.

It seems working anonymously might be a possible escape. This, however, goes against the concept of glory (kleos) in which the reward is the very opposite of anonymity.

>>7449672
Read some Aurelius and realize the answer is that fame and glory is worthless. Your time out of the vastness of human history and what is yet to come is stupidly small. Posthumous fame does you no good, and how long until you're completely forgotten? A hundred years? A thousand? Does it matter? The memory of you will be gone some day. Of your two fates, the second is the one to aim for. If you want to pull back from that, you'd ask what the point of staying alive is if there's no difference between dying in this moment and being dead or dying fifty years from now and being dead. And since suicide is something that goes against every fiber of your being, the question is: since I am alive, what is the best way for me to live?

>>7449869
You're right, neither choice seems to guarantee the desired outcome.

However, I'm assuming a *great* man debating such a choice. The kind of man Achilles is said to have been. So far ahead of everyone that no one can deny his strength. Could such a man would fall to obscurity if he were to choose the former of the two fates?

Marx is an interesting counter example. Though I think it's inaccurate to say that he lived a quiet life. He was plagued by illness constantly, and he had many enemies.

Choosing the 'short' but glorious lifestyle (or fate) doesn't necessarily mean that you will die young. Obviously, we cannot determine Fate in such a way. But nonetheless such a choice will undoubtly put one in harms way, as Marx himself did in return for the possibility (in his case reality) of fame

>>7449887
I've read the meditations and I agree with his and your logic. The intellect always seems to choose the latter of the two fates, and rightfully so.

Human passion, however, seems to strive for the former. Whether or not it appears logical, we all desire kleos. At least I think this is the case.

Freud believed that a greater happiness is possible for the individual who chooses the glory in exchange for peace. It is still possible to find the religious (intellectual) happiness of calm in the Buddhist sense of denouncing the self and avoiding pain, but with this life, happiness is incomplete. Nietzsche's thought (which probably influenced Freud) says much the same. The highest from of happiness is only found if one chooses the first fate. Still, our intellect warns us of the inevitable dangers by denouncing kleos as foolish.

>>7449672
achilles is a broken vessel - dependent on his mommy to solve his problems - and he has a vast infinite manly rage that he can only pour into what he is good at - which is killing people.

his choice is the choice of one kind of man - and most nowadays are too desperate and beta to take the life of glory.

now, more interestingly, is the fate of odysseus, who seems to be more psychologically independent of his parents, but because of this he's looked up to by many of the greeks, and he's their head problem solver/trickster, and though he tries to lead his men home, their failure weighs on him.

odysseus is the fated man, similar to jesus or david, who like Aeneas (who also has mommy/self worth issues) has a single fate - the problem is living UP to that fate.

and then of course we have dante and tennyson spin out the odysseus story with his restlessness leading him out and past the strait of gibraltar to die.

which begs the question of what happens to telemachus.

also the apocrypha about his son from circe is bretty cool but i don't know what the original sources are on that.

love the greeks

>>7449974
>Whether or not it appears logical, we all desire kleos.
>Freud believed that a greater happiness is possible for the individual who chooses the glory in exchange for peace.
We're talking about glory and Fate here, but what encompasses Fate? What about Chaos? Where is self-destruction in all of this? I can't remember where I read something on this but it's along the lines of 'being closer to the edge of death tightens your grip on life'. If self-destruction is the wrong term here, what about hedonism? Is glory applicable to hedonism, or would something like 'admiration' fit more aptly? Does glory even exist in today's world? Would admiration, in one's ability to indulge in a hedonistic life, be an adequate substitute for glory?

>Still, our intellect warns us of the inevitable dangers by denouncing kleos as foolish.
Something from Schope, but I might be mixing him up with others: the Will to life is like that of a parasite clinging and begging to hold onto its host. In relation to your sentence, what the intellect finds the most stupid and inane is the opposite of what it feeds off, death. Definitely from Schope: when in bad times it is easy to remember the good times in painstaking detail, but in good times it is hard to remember the bad times and they're like a vague dream one once had. The 'intellect', the Will, wants you to forget about what will happen to you, this ultimate bad, and also the times in your life that were bad in general, until you're old and frail and your body is ready to let go.

>>7450084
>love the greeks
Start with the Greeks, and then Start with the Greeks again