A couple of hours ago I wished to share something with regards to your discussion on religion.

I guess
things took a turn for the better and I ended up keeping my inner ramblings for a bit (at least until now)
due to the conversation changing pace and switching to a different topic.

If it is valid to take some sort of reference point (as it might strike some of you as awfully convenient or
senseless to try to look for an order, what if there isnt?) by which things begin. Or if one is to assume
the existence of such a point and call it the beginning by which recursion (?) takes place into the being,
Id say the men of old would either call it a soul or composition.

The idea is quite simple and it forms the core of Platos The Republic: what we see and what we
perceive is the result of what composes man itself. Or, in other words, man is a reflection of his soul.

It is of no surprise that to Plato, and many others, every object had a pure essence, or pure idea,
behind them. As us, everything had its own composition, so striving to know it was in itself a sublime
intention.

All sorts of objects have a certain art dedicated to them. Rightfully so does the blacksmith who knows
what composes his object of work might be able to compare his works to those of Hephaestus. Same
thing applies to any man who, inspired by a sudden delirium, turns all of his attention to a particular
field, for who knows, he might be able to turn his newly obtained inspiration into an everlasting love for
all that composes his object of choice.

Yet, arent we missing something that goes hand in hand with any profession? Be the blacksmith, be the
poet, for, like the jeweler, theres another art which examines a more mysterious and complicated gem,
that which is us, that which is our soul (or whatever you may want to call it).

Hence a man who disregards himself will never be complete, and a man who ignores what composes
him (or the origin of his actions) wont be able to, as Plato says, fly close to the Gods, and attempt to
achieve perfection.

I present the (simple) metaphor of the man who commands and steer a ship, which I eventually wanted
to call the form - of this art, that of navigating on a different kind of ocean. This ocean is the reflection
of mans soul behaving and moving as he does. So when Achilles, disturbed by the calamity of a lost
comrade, marches on the open field unarmed but, when seen by the Trojans, they look in awe rage itself
in the mans eyes, frightened they run hoping they wont fall prey to him when he decides to take up
arms, so will be agitation of the ocean and so will be the man who, reluctantly, will try to maneuver on
such waters, or may try to turn back at the sight of the tempest.

But if one does see the waters and knows how to steer his vessel, he may look up from time to time and
try to feel the direction of the wind or he may look down and see ahead, contemplating the movements
of the never ending waters.
If he is quick he may realize that a choice can be made and he might try to choose. For only he knows
how to care for his soul, and if he strives to know whats good and just (in their purest sense) he might
be able to make the right choices to make of this a pleasurable and enlightening journey. Or, if giving up
on such tasks, and takes in the things that seem to be true (but are so only on its surface) and,
mistaking whats just for whats unjust, he may realize its too late when he sees his humble ship at the
brink of disaster.

Whether right or wrong, one would leave to a God the accurate judgment of others. However, until
then, man, aided by reason, should see what belongs and what doesnt, for there is a choice, doesnt it?

And so Socrates, joined by his friend Phaedrus, attributes the origin of his beautiful sudden speech to
the Muses and, when speaking about love, he calls upon Eros and gives his thanks for favoring him with
an undeserved inspiration. You may picture him as happy, for he knows what to make his and he knows
what to make out of it.

Likewise does Diomedes as described by Homer calls upon Athena to grant him strength so he may
be able to kill that despicable man who managed to hit him with an arrow. What happens next is but the
stuff of legends, as Diomedes comes back revitalized, and no other man could compare to him who
could stand against the entire Trojan army and come back alive and victorious.

These men who embrace the teachings of ancient heroes and the myths, made the same choice as the
man who decides to let them go because he sees it convenient, for any reason whatsoever. What some
may call the death of the spirit (whether or not it ever lived in the first place) is, to me, but an
epiphany that may be on equal terms as that of believing (or choosing to believe).

And for that I place no difference between what you call religion and other objects that, placed on
certain categories, aid or harm what composes a man. But I do see in both what could be a wise or
unwise choice, depending on the character of man and his intentions.

So the man who lacks religion is not religious, in the same sense that the man who lacks the
knowledge of justice is not just.

But theres something to understand here. There is, as some say, a double edge to this that should be
considered. That theres a difference between the imitation of the object and giving shape to it, or let it
shape us.

Stay with me on this last push, and dont take the metaphor too literally.

If one could see the effects of these disciplines / arts and objects onto the soul (be with some magical
device, be with the eyes of a God), one may see a difference on each one of them. Certain things give
different shapes and colors. One may be able to see how a blacksmith really is for he now witnesses
the transformation his art had in his inner self. One may be able to identify too the effects of justice and
truth simply by these fictitious colors and forms he is now capable of seeing.
Then let it be known, that the true warrior (not an imitator) who yielded his sword and dropped his
spear, is not a warrior, but still is (or could be), for we should not ignore that his soul now has
assumed this shape, it knows of it, it may continue to move like it, it acquired its science. And, if he is
bright, he may not forget.

From this that I conclude that I see a struggle of equal magnitude on that of not being when one has
taken on the form of the object of his choosing. Leading me to put into doubt if theres actually a man
who is not religious without being an imitator (hence we might even call him a religious man still).

Our speech ends in contradictory conclusions, so it concludes nothing as expected. Thanks for reading.