Castor and Pollux

>>8766728
>What does /lit/ think of my theory?
It's shit.

>>8766728
It is shit.

Or you could say that existed Plato and Aristotle, with very different ideas, and that pair is also found in [your list].

Or that Beatles and Rolling Stones present an archetypal duality that is anachronically represented by [your list]

Ok, my point being, it is not that Castor and Pollux are keys that define all of those pairs you mentioned, but simply that they parallel to each other, they come together. This is important to have in mind, otherwise you'll form a false hierarchy and you'll always refer to the same pair again and again. You'll find similarities, but there are also plenty of differences that cannot escape you. When psychoanalysis talks of Narcisus, Oedipus or Antigone, they are using them as illustrations for fundamental relationships that are not equal to the real situations, but that offer insight on how to deal with them. In the same way, you can use Castor and Pollux to talk about those relationships, not only because they have similarities, but because the acknowledging of those similarities help you see the points in which they differ.

In other words, there is no TEAMCASTOR or TEAMPOLLUX

Narcissus and Goldmund
btw, read Narcissus and Goldmund

>>8766734
>>8766741
BUT WHY

>>8766728
>Da Vinci and Michelangelo
And Raphael.

>Beethoven and Mozart
And Bach.

>Kierkegaard and Nietzsche
And Marx. He was certainly a bigger deal than Kierkegaard.

>Tupac and Biggie
And Jungle Jim.

Wittgenstein and Heidegger