Personification in Greek Myth

[Huggy Bear]

Hey all, it's been a while but I'm studying philosophy and mythology again so I figured it would be a good time to come back.

So I'm reading up on Greek mythology and what I'm having a hard time comprehending is what exactly  ancient Greeks were picturing when they imagined their many different gods, particularly those gods that are personifications of the aspects of the natural world? Take Helios, the sun god, for instance. Helios is described as this dude with a flaming chariot drawn by four flying horses. But obviously if you look at the sun you won't see this. You'll just see a glowing orb. So did they think that Helios and his chariot was invisible, with only the flames being visable?

Or take Gaia, aka Mother Earth. She's described as having a humanoid form and does things that humans do like speak, procreate, etc. But at this same time she's supposed to be the actual earth that we all inhabit. How were these two seemingly incompatible things compatable in the minds of the Greeks?

Was it meant literally? Or was it all just metaphorical language? Or did these beings actually exist in humanoid form in some other plane of existence with the natural world being some very imperfect representation of them? What were Greeks thinking?

*emphasis mine*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra

Ra was worshipped as the Creator god among some ancient Egyptians, specifically followers of his cult at Heliopolis.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliopolis...ent_Egypt)

Heliopolis is the latinized form of the Ptolemaic Greek name Hēlioúpolis (Ἡλιούπολις), meaning "City of the Sun". Helios, the personified and deified form of the sun, was identified by the Greeks with the native Egyptian gods Ra and Atum, whose principal cult was located in the city.

You seem to assume that what you refer to as Greek mythology was originally created by the Greeks, that is simply not the case. As I've stated repeatedly on these forums, Greek mythology is nothing more than a derivative of Egyptian mythology which the Egyptians derived from ancient Babylon.

Also

http://www.artic.edu/~llivin/research/gr...tian_gods/

Richard Poe in “Black Spark, White Fire” argues that the assumption that the ancient Egyptians did not sail across the Mediterranean Sea is a carefully constructed scientific myth. Evidence that the ancient Egyptians did just that is similar to the volume of evidence that the Phoenicians and Minoans sailed that sea. Scientists willingly accept those cultures’ seafaring capability, yet illogically limit the ancient Egyptians’ capability to do the same.
Still, there is powerful evidence to show that the Egyptians did venture beyond the Nile. It is also known that they possessed a large fleet. And Thor Heyerdahl showed that even their “primitive boats” were able to master the currents of the oceans – thus very well equipped to master the much calmer waters of the Mediterranean Sea.

The same veil of ignorance is maintained when it comes to philosophy. Both Plato and Pythagoras, identified as icons of Greek philosophy, stated that they and other great Greek philosophers had studied and learned that knowledge in Egypt. Many had studied many years at Egyptian schools, to return to Greece as the “first philosophers”.

Thales of Milete

Iamblichus wrote that Thales of Milete had to make it clear to Pythagoras that the latter had to go to Memphis, in Egypt, to study. Thales added that it were the Egyptian priests that were a veritable source of knowledge and information. Thales stated this at a time when he himself was Greece’s most famous and applauded philosopher, even though it would be his protégé Pythagoras who is currently best remembered as the “first philosopher”.
After Socrates’ death, Plato left for Egypt, where he studied for a period of 13 years. His mentor was Sechnuphis, a priest of Heliopolis (modern Cairo and thus near the Great Pyramid).

Years afterwards, Strabo would travel through Egypt. His Egyptian guide showed him where Plato had lived. It was how Plato learned the fable of Thoth and Amun, which he wrote down in Phaedros. Despite its clearly Egyptian source, many “scholars” interpreted that treatise as a “typically Greek” text. They “explained” their anomalous thinking by arguing that the Greeks “bragged”. They argued that the Greeks wanted to make their philosophy appear to be much older than it actually was. Though possible, it is clear that the available evidence (of which we have not even presented one percent) in this case does not warrant such a conclusion. If the Greeks stated they learned their philosophy from the Egyptians, why not simply accept that?

The answer is clear: whereas the ancient Greeks were completely comfortable with their inheritance of the Egyptian philosophy, modern scholars were not. As a result, they have had to jump through hoops to explain certain of Plato’s writings.

Basically what we have here is a bit of historical revisionism.