Talk:Eidolon

This article was nominated for deletion on 17 September 2009 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

On 16 March 2018, it was proposed that this article be moved from Eidolon (apparition) to Eidolon. The result of the discussion was moved.

Difference?[edit]

Not the most useful definition

Whats the difference between Eidolon and Doppelganger?

IMO - (based on several general-field books, which is why I'm not trying to cite in article atm)

Doppelganger would be a non-intended PHYSICAL double of your person. To define that sentence, if you were walking down the street in the physical realm, and passed yourself, with no conscious intent on your part to re-create your identity into a seperate incarnation, what you just saw was your doppelganger. Slight variations exist as to whose intent (your's or your double's) is valid, and the necessity of the "perfection" or "polarity" (ie your "evil twin") of the double, but a physical manifestation of your SELF in another being seems to be the gist of the concept.

Conversely, if you are dreaming, astral projecting, lucid-dreaming, conscious meditating, or are in another (non physical) realm, and you create an altered (or not) "body" (up to and including metaphysical representations of pure thought) for your SELF to present itself in, with the intent to interact with that realm, then you have created an Eidolon. A useful synonym in this sense would be your "Avatar." Again, there are quibbles regarding the "physicality" of Eidolons when crossing bands between lucid dreams, the "Dreaming" of the Native Americans and the psychic event of astral projection. The conscious re-creation of your SELF in a manifestible (in whichever realm intended) form seems to be the requisite definition.

165.166.3.170 18:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC) SCLibrarian[reply]

Question to myself and everyone else[edit]

My sources tell me that: "The concept of the eidolons of the dead was explored in various literature regarding Penelope, who in later works was constantly laboring against the eidolons of Clytamnestra and later Helen herself.[1]" is a perfectly valid explanation for Homer and other's treatment of Penelope when you take the intertwined themes of kleos and eidolon into account (e.g. when she is compared to them/entertwined to their fates through the literary world's social and mythological lens). I'm having trouble buying that but also having trouble refuting it using reputable sources. Or am I talking out of my ears? Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 01:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Eidola in Epicurean philosophy[edit]

There is a concept in Epicurean philosophy with the same name; should there be a section on this page about it?

In Epicurus's epistemology, objects continuously throw out layers of themselves that are one atom thick, which are absorbed or taken up by those who perceive the objects. These layers are the eidola.

I'm not an expert on this topic yet (still a student), and my knowledge comes from lecture notes. I'm not entirely sure where to start with scholarly sources, since there are so many on the subject.

G. Haigh (talk) 04:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC) G. Haigh[reply]

That appears to have more to do with theories of vision than simulacra of living or dead people... AnonMoos (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 16 March 2018[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Seems to be the clear path ahead. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (closed by page mover) Paine Ellsworth ^put'r there 10:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eidolon (apparition) → Eidolon
Eidolon → Eidolon (disambiguation)

– Seems like the clear primary topic, being the origin of the name, and gets a large number of pageviews compared to the other articles with the name. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:48, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would you propose doing the same to Jock and Wiener too? They are both disamb pages without "(disambiguation)" in the title. 58.167.170.47 (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, because there is no clear primary topic for those words outside the USA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Most of the pop culture references are irrelevant and can be removed[edit]

Almost all of the popular culture references listed in the article simply mention that something in that piece of media is called "eidolon", such as the name of a company (in-universe) or an episode title. See WP:POPCULTURE; these are not notable, and there's no point in mentioning them here. There's also no point in just listing things titled "Eidolon" in this article, especially since there's already a disambiguation article linked from the hatnote at the top of the page... In addition, the lists of references in pop culture are almost entirely uncited. I think most of the pop culture list sections in this article can be safely removed from the article. V2Blast (talk) 05:19, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was severely pruned back several years ago, but has regrown... AnonMoos (talk) 21:41, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We'll see what happens now that I've removed the trivia and tried to point enthusiasts to ghe disambiguation page. Rutsq (talk) 17:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]