The goddess Victory presides over victory. How real are gods like this? Very real. Instead of looking at her like a being in charge of victory. Instead, it’s better to ask if victory as a concept is real. Nobody can argue that the concept is real. Once you’ve found a real concept, you then have to ask where is can be applied: games, fights, winnings from gambling, war, intellectual discovery, law, etc.
Another way to look at Victory is that it’s a “type of guy”. Sure, Victory is a woman, but you get the idea. We can categorize people into types of “guys”. These “guys” are people who base their behaviors on particular principles. People pursue pleasure, victory, and truth. But why does victory need to be a woman? Why is a table, in Russian, masculine and a lamp feminine? Sometimes it makes sense, other times it may not. But even in English, we can say that some words are kiki and others are bouba. Might as well say masculine and feminine.
Can you actually pursue victory in all things? Sure, but what determines victory, and are all things really worth being victorious in? And hence, we introduce the entire pantheon of gods. Maybe you want victory in the highest status game. But how do you determine what has the greatest status? If the public determines status, then you’re pursuing the God of something like democracy, consensus? And how does the public determine who deserves status? Wouldn’t it be better to worship that god?
What about people who make everything about money? What is money? Money is a proxy for value. So you could be said to be worshiping the god of greed, possession, and good harvest. You can then assemble with others who pursue this “god” in their lives whether they be fishermen or work in finance. They can teach each other things. These learnings then become canonized and melded together into a persona. People can becomes intercessors for this god. Every group has their own inside jokes, and idiosyncratic practices. These become canonized into ritual and performed in a cargo-cult like manner. And, ironically, this legibility marks the beginning of the end. Predictability makes followers of such gods less dangerous, and more predictable to others.
The god of health may ask you to brush your teeth and floss. In the pursuit of this god, you find yourself becoming increasingly germaphobic until you go crazy. Suppose you see people pursuing a god to the logical conclusion and see them go insane. What are they really worshipping? Could they be said to be different gods if they all cause insanity?
Could it be that today’s gods can be found in the pantheon of the DSM V? It cold be that what they describe aren’t qualitative differences between the sane and insane, but “types of guys” who all drive themselves off the cliff of insanity. This isn’t a “new” idea. This is Jordan Peterson’s “archetype”. Narcissism is a personality disorder, but the name comes from Narcissus, the god. He falls in love with his own reflection and never finds love. Narcissus is a type of guy.
Given all this, we can come to understand what St. Augustine is trying to say when he calls all the other gods, except for the Christian one, demons. He’s saying you can’t follow any god to their logical conclusion without driving yourself off a cliff. Viewed this way, following the various gods is a form of being pulled in various directions by one demon or another. These demons all ask for sacrifice. They fight with one another, have their own vices, and yet manage to achieve much despite their flaws. They are flawed heroes.
There could be many types of guys. One could go from being one type to another in the search for either themselves, or in a search for their place in the world. People think about who they identify with in TV shows, etc. Many “types” appear again and again. You have the nerd, the goth, the charismatic football player, the pretty nerdy girl who magically transforms into a popular bimbo upon her discovery of mascara. I don’t know what to make of Marvel and DC superheroes. Can they be a type? Or are they more like Gods representing the natural world?
Further, I think the “types of guys” such as the virgin, chad, doomer, tech bro, etc are all modern day gods. People identify with them and “worship” them. If you worship the virgin god, you are prescribed specific garb associated with him: skinny jeans, a downward tilt of the head, always walking and thinking, and inoffensive New Balance shoes. The NPC is also such a god. Can you say people don’t worship these gods if they can so easily be placed in various camps? Gods don’t just appear. They really do exist to people, and by categorizing people as worshipers of various gods, you make everyone’s idiosyncrasies more legible.
We can and should have myths depicting these various “types of guys” interacting with one another in increasingly accurate ways. The doomer isn’t just goth, and doesn’t just wear black. He smokes, wears a beanie, and reads Nietzsche. What happens when he comes in contact with Chad? What happens when NPCs see Chad winning so decisively over the incel Virgin? There could be entire stories and movies written about these characters on Twitter.
Interesting premise. The acting out of character types certainly has a ritualistic and worship kind of component to it, the creating of egregious no doubt, but I’d consider a stereotype to an archetype as different levels of deities - just as there’s angels and demons versus gods, or titans that are more primordial, not every character type rises to the level of full godhood imo.
I’d see this as an argument for minding a multitude of gods. committing to one over all others creates the absolutism and excesses you are referring to. Jung saw the flaw of Christianity as its binary of Good and Evil created by upholding a singularity. At least minding a multitude of virtues/angels under the one god is a useful stance.