Anonymous
8/11/2025, 2:17:16 AM No.82144757
Is the archetypal good king or warrior a possible archetype psychologically or is it always a form of arrogance or submission to rules like Nietzsche postulated? I wonder if such people exist if they are beyond the order of those corrupted or otherwise power hungry leaders. As corrupted you can take Peter Thiel, as merely power hungry you can take Napoleon or Alexander the Great. I wonder if there is an objective measure for which to say spiritually the good warrior or king is within a superior realm as compared to the other formations. If this can be said due to their superiority regarding self control or perhaps other traits such as representing the structural harmony of the universe. The critique of this would be when they say that we only say they're superior because they benefit the masses (the masses benefit from such strong powerful good people existing.) I wonder if there are IRL manifestations of such people. Maybe Bernie Sanders or Chris Hedges? (assuming they aren't puppets or whatever.) In that case though, these people are rather boring aesthetically speaking. But yeah, they could in some aspects represent this strong goodness archetype. In a way perfection is represented through order, like the statue of a perfect angel, and purity. The archetype of perfection is never that of a powerful chaotic being. I wonder if these depictions are contradictory or merely ideal and not possible from the point of view of self interested biological being which is what we are. Or if they were real in a synthetic entity, they would be devoid of life. For instance, the greek mythological figures were full of life and constantly deceiving and killing each other. In that sense the perfect good entity would be inhuman. None of this is to attack this conception but to maybe think about if it is possible to begin with, as I am intrigued by their possibility of existing and they could help humanity if they did become more commonplace.