Mythopoeic Thought: The root of Greek philosophy.
Note: The original work on this subject was The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man, An Essay on Speculative Thought in the Ancient Near East by Henri Frankfort, H.A. Frankfort, John A. Wilson, Thorkild Jacobsen, and William A. Irwin (University of Chicago Press, 1946, 1977). If you are interested in this topic you can read it here: The origin of philosophy: The Attributes of Mythic.
Pre-philosophical thought can be characterized as "mythopoeic," or "mythic" thought. There is a large and growing literature about mythology, but here all that is necessary are the points what will serve the purpose of distinguishing philosophical thought from the thought of people in earlier Middle Eastern civilizations (Egyptians, Babylonians, etc.) about the nature of things. With the identification of the characteristics of mythic forms of human thought, it becomes possible to identify the unique innovations of philosophy. Note that philosophic thought does not replace mythopoeic thought but supplements it. We can discuss the following examples and characteristics:
What changed in philosophy? Thales proposed a different account of earthquakes, that they are just when a wave in the cosmic ocean rocks the earth, which floats like a plate on the ocean. This explanation eliminated the actions or intentions of the gods.
Changed in philosophy: The theories of the earliest Greeks philosophers, especially those about whom we know the most, like Anaximander and Heraclitus, are systematic and internally coherent. Inconsistency is grounds for criticism, or, as practiced by Socrates, falsification.
Changed in philosophy: Greek philosophy represented a burst of creativity. While Thales' views about water reflected long held mythic accounts, he was immediately superseded by the multiple novel theories of Anaximander, Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Pythagoras, and Heraclitus, all within 80 years.
Changed in philosophy: Parmenides, after the invocation of an unnamed goddess in his poem, The Way of Truth, offers substantive arguments for his views.
Which are your thoughts on this topic? Do you know other examples about mythopoeic?
Pre-philosophical thought can be characterized as "mythopoeic," or "mythic" thought. There is a large and growing literature about mythology, but here all that is necessary are the points what will serve the purpose of distinguishing philosophical thought from the thought of people in earlier Middle Eastern civilizations (Egyptians, Babylonians, etc.) about the nature of things. With the identification of the characteristics of mythic forms of human thought, it becomes possible to identify the unique innovations of philosophy. Note that philosophic thought does not replace mythopoeic thought but supplements it. We can discuss the following examples and characteristics:
- 1. Myths are stories about persons, where persons may be gods, heroes, or ordinary people.
What changed in philosophy? Thales proposed a different account of earthquakes, that they are just when a wave in the cosmic ocean rocks the earth, which floats like a plate on the ocean. This explanation eliminated the actions or intentions of the gods.
- 2. Myth allows for a multiplicity of explanations, where the explanations are not logically exclusive (can contradict each other) and are often humorous.
Changed in philosophy: The theories of the earliest Greeks philosophers, especially those about whom we know the most, like Anaximander and Heraclitus, are systematic and internally coherent. Inconsistency is grounds for criticism, or, as practiced by Socrates, falsification.
- 3. Mythic traditions are conservative. Innovation is slow, and radical departures from tradition rarely tolerated.
Changed in philosophy: Greek philosophy represented a burst of creativity. While Thales' views about water reflected long held mythic accounts, he was immediately superseded by the multiple novel theories of Anaximander, Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Pythagoras, and Heraclitus, all within 80 years.
- 4. Myths are self-justifying. The inspiration of the gods was enough to ensure their validity.
Changed in philosophy: Parmenides, after the invocation of an unnamed goddess in his poem, The Way of Truth, offers substantive arguments for his views.
Which are your thoughts on this topic? Do you know other examples about mythopoeic?
Comments (92)
Plato's Phaedo. A detailed discussion:here
Plato's Timaeus. Discussed in far less detail here
Thanks for sharing. I am completely fool for forgetting Plato's work. Yes, he is essential to mythopoeic.
I found in the paper a very important quote about Plato: The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. by Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality, p. 53 [Free Press, 1969]; the painting is the School of Athens.
I think it could be important to consider Plato as the real evolution of mythopoeic.
The question of why Plato used mythopoesis is interesting.
Yes, it is :up:
You already shared a link where that topic was discussed. Nevertheless, I found another paper who looks so interesting and I think it is worthy to attach it here: The Mythopoetic Mind of Plato: The Kingdom-Sages Muthos in Timaeus, The Republic, and The Symposium (Parts III & IV)
A good while back I read this book that dealt with these questions, a preface to Plato (history of the Greek mind). I thought it quite interesting at the time :
https://monoskop.org/images/0/0d/Havelock_Eric_A_Preface_to_Plato.pdf
Part of differences between myth an philosophy have to do with the transition of an oral tradition wherein myth originated, to a written tradition. Purely from a practical point of view alone, it is perhaps easy to see that oral pieces that are preformed, will tend to have different characteristic, like how they sound (instead of read) and the fact that you have to memorize them. Verse, narrative, rhyme all are mnemonic devices that you strictly speaking don't need anymore if a text is preserved in written form.
The links I provided are to things I posted [that is, wrote] on the forum.
I do not agree with the claim in the link you provided that:
The short answer, I think, is that myths provide answers that reasoned discussion fail to provide. Their effectiveness lies, at least in part, in providing beliefs that are taken by the listener to be true. Rather than validated true belief, Timaeus, in his own works, gives us "likely stories (ton eikota mython)". It should be noted that Socrates remains silent.
That's a very good point, indeed. I wasn't aware of the process of transition. It is another big difference we have to consider of. It is true that (as you explained with the link you provided) the sense of the reading is clearly different. If we read a myth it sounds so poetic but if we check a Plato's work it gives other feelings.
Well, yes. I also think that the paper I shared fails to put mythopoetic in epistemology. But I didn't pretend to claim that I was agree with the author but the simple fact to consider how interesting other perspectives on this issue are.
Quoting Fooloso4
Exactly. As I typed above, myths tend to be self-justifying. The inspirations and beliefs about Gods or heroes are enough to ensure their validity without a basic argumentation.
I have reservations about attributing beliefs to people on the basis of myths, poetry, painting, sculpture etc. I imagine archaeologists of the future finding the statue of Eros in Picadilly Circus and saying "Look, Londoners still believed in the ancient Greek gods!" I say 'One for sorrow, two for joy' when I count magpies and I have no doubt that the number of magpies is utterly unrelated to my fortunes.
This is what they thought in the bronze age about such superstitions:
[quote=Homer]You tell me to put my trust in birds, flying off on their long wild wings? Never. I would never give them a glance, a second thought, whether they fly on the right toward the dawn and sunrise or fly on the left toward the haze and coming dark![/quote]
Quoting javi2541997
He also said the world is full of gods. Just as we know there is no Eros and still put up a statue to him.
The myth of the metals in the Republic is called a "noble lie".
The muses tell Hesiod that they speak lies like the truth (Theogony 27)
:up: :yum:
Quoting Cuthbert
Fortunately! I think this is the path we should to keep. Never forget where art, literature, myths, philosophy come from. One of our duties is to maintain those "proofs" of their existence.
Quoting Cuthbert
Yes! But Thales tended to be more argumentative than poets or "story tellers" who spread the myth in Ancient Greece.
At least one of the main skills towards Thales was their ability to justify his thoughts rather than to put up everything as pure affirmative or "true"
:up: :flower:
Related to muses there is also another interesting fact: there are no Muses of plastic arts (painting, sculpture, architecture), or of philosophy.
This must mean that the myth of the Muses was finalized before the advent of philosophy or of significant stone architecture.
Nevertheless, it is true that we use the word "Muse" to refer to a person (commonly female) who inspire us to make art.
We can see a good example in this paint which is called: The Sacred Grove, Beloved of the Arts and the Muses. They are represented by some artists with a connection to Ancient Greece or Greek philosophy.
I just heard a segment on the radio talking about Nure-onna (wet woman). Given your interest in the Japanese and mythology I thought this was an interesting coincidence.
I like CJ Rowe's papers on this point.....
Archaic thought in Hesiod
https://fdocuments.net/document/archaic-thought-in-hesiod.html
Anaximander and the Relation Between Myth and Philosophy in the 6thC
https://ir.icscanada.edu/bitstream/handle/10756/291049/Rowe_William_V_1979_MPhilF_Thesis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
He points out how the transition from myth to philosophy is marked by a broader psychological shift to demanding a consistency in all causal explanation.
The mythic mind is tolerant of holding many apparently conflicting explanations true at the same time. Gods can be both the personification of natural forces and human characters in social tales without that seeming an odd way of rationalising. Whereas the philosophical mind demands a reduction to some common cause that stands behind all things.
Quoting apokrisis
Another kind of philosophical mind asks whether such a demand is justified. The world is as it is and if it turns out there is no common cause behind all things we just have to cope with that.
(A couple more posts and we'll be debating whether there is One or Many.)
Sure. For every action, its reaction. The Enlightenment, hence Romanticism. AP, hence PoMo.
But that just tells you dialectics is the true totalising discourse. :razz:
Greek philosophy quickly got there with its unity of opposites and Aristotelean systems thinking. Peircean semiotics cashed it out in the modern era (after Hegel and others had kicked it about).
So the fundamental unity is to be found in a model of causality that places the accidents and necessities of reality in their appropriate systematic relation.
It is how you would glue unity and plurality together as the one system that is the key insight. And Anaximander certainly started that ball rolling at the dawn of Greek thought.
:up: :flower:
Agreed! This is a good difference between myth and philosophy too: the cause behind all things and arguments. That reduction of common cause come from a debate during decades among all the philophers. Whereas in mythology it didn't appear to be causes at all because there were multiple explanations without even logic. A good example is Egyptian mythology. The Gods and heroes are represented by different scenarios so randomly, without a common cause explained with argumentation.
We were losing a lot of originality, indeed. I am agree with you in the fact that we should be more critical with our insight but... where is our real background? Everything sooner or after end up in Socrates, Aristotle or Plato works (thus, Greek philosophy which flourished from mythopoeic).
Then, we have to take part in mythology again if we want to be critical again.
Mythology is, inter alia, what in modern terms would be novelization of one/more ideas - the point is to convey the meaning of them through a story involving, if the writer is worth his salt, interesting & relatable characters, good, bad and all in between. Story-telling around the fire, ring any bells? Everybody loves a story, oui monsieur?
The other facet to myths is the personification of qualities e.g. war has a god Ares, death is Thanos, life is Phanes and so on. I'm particularly partial to this approach - it resonates deeply with me. This way of looking at our world is not unique to the Greeks though; even Hindus do it e.g. there's a god of death, Yama, in that religion. Once we replace a something with someone, which myth is, doors open - we can talk, beseech, curse, negotiate, placate, persuade, instigate, the list goes on, with these gods/deities.
Myths make the abstract concrete - ideas become beings we can, sensu amplissimo, commune with.
Thank you to you for taking part in my thread! :sparkle:
Quoting Agent Smith
Another common personification: Sun has a God Rê in Egyptian mythology; Helios in Greek mythology; Utu in Mesopotamian culture, etc...
I think is important to highlight the fact that mythology also uses human representations. For example: Odysseus. He is a legendary Greek king of Ithaca and the hero of Homer's epic poem the Odyssey.
So we've discussed the pros of mythology, what about the cons? Let's not forget its limitations too, oui?
One downside that stands out like a sore thumb is sometimes people begin to rely completely on prayer and prayer alone which can range from simple :pray: to (animal/human) sacrifice :scream: . They forget to do their part (the king of Lydia's tragic fate is a case in point - he attacked Persia because the oracle of Delphi told him "a great kingdom will fall"; he didn't use his brains all that well).
Sure, there are some cons towards mythology. A good example could be the lack of innovation.. Most of the tales pass through the story tellers without any doubt or criticism. I think this is due to the loyalty shown to the "Gods" who (according to Greek Mythology) are self-justifying and do not need approval from us. For example:Zeus then sets up the stone at Delphi, so that it may act as "a sign thenceforth and a marvel to mortal men"
But, philosophy shows more self-criticism during the transition of different periods. A good example could be Socratics vs Sophits
Back to the main page now - the negatives of mythology. It's kinda a mental illness/cognitive bias (re agent detection/delusion) vis-à-vis current psychological paradigms. If one wants to worship Sophia one has to do so half-jokingly nowadays (re the Flying Spaghetti Monster). If you don't, be ready to be the laughing stock of your colleagues.
:lol: plot twist: countries with a deep tradition in Hinduism tend to have similar rituals. Such as India and Thailand: Hindus, though, arent the only South Asians to worship elephants. Buddhists, for instance, believe so-called white elephants, a light-colored variant, carry special significance. In Thailand, white elephants are considered the kings property, and wars have been fought over these relatively rare animals. S15 EP7: THE ELEPHANT MEN Living Gods
Quoting Agent Smith
I don't get this :sweat:
Quoting 180 Proof
White elephants aren't exactly white; they're just light grey if I remember correctly. Talk about lowering one's standards. :snicker: Yellow is the new black? :chin:
There's more to worship than merely begging for help - it tends to purify/sanctify relationships via a power asymmetry between the worshipper and that which is worshipped. Some like it but then some don't. I knew this guy in college; one day I swung by to his room and noticed all his books were strewn on the floor. I asked "what's up?" His reply was that if you keep them on the shelf, they're above your head and that would have the unpleasant consequence of failing to understand them; in other words the contents of the books would "go over his head". Instead of worship, he looked at Sophia with contempt - an inverted worldview worth pondering upon. Si comprehendis, non est Deus, no, no, not at all!
Ati sundar! :clap:
:100: :sparkle:
Completely agree. Sadly, we currently live in a social context which depends on scientific materialism. It looks like the truth is based on some mathematical formulas but we forget and give up on imagination.
I am with you: I wouldn't swap science for mythology.
"mythopoeic," "mythopoetic," or "mythic" thought. "Mythopoeic" means "making" (??????, poieîn, from which the word "poet" is derived) "myth" (?????, mûthos). :grin:
I guess their followers see Donald Trump as Odysseus fighting against Cyclops.
Ivanka Trump as Penelope :joke:
You can say that again, but some would say humanity went through a "dumb" phase viz. post-Hellenistic religious stage (the Abrahamic triad) which lasted up until the renaissance (17[sup]th[/sup]th century?). What sayest thou?
Thanks for the article. I noticed your OP lists only 4 out of the 5 characteristics of myth and changes in philosophy as listed. The 5th:
Quoting Myth, Philosophy, Why the Greeks?, Parmenides, Greek History
[emphasis added]
So, the main characters are not always good, so what? Isn't that the whole point of a story?
The contrasts between good and evil...the slow and the quick...highlight thoughts, behaviour and actions with consequences, even if the moral lesson is not always obvious.
Is it true that Socrates and Plato cannot imagine the gods doing anything wrong or evil?
Quoting javi2541997
Thanks for introducing this topic and new word for me. I'm going to stick with 'myths'.
There are some interesting, curious and questionable claims by the author.
The article starts:
[emphasis added]
I think the key question is how philosophy is defined.
I tend to think of philosophy as a process and a continuation of curiosity and seeking answers to questions about life, the universe and everything.
Myth contains philosophy and philosophy contains myth.
What or who determines what philosophy is?
So, I disagree that there is such a thing as 'pre-philosophical' thought.
Like Cuthbert:
Quoting Cuthbert
Returning to the article and points 1-4.
1. Myths are stories about persons, where persons may be gods, heroes, or ordinary people.
The article concentrates on a narrow set of myths and there is nothing that I can see about ordinary people. We tell ourselves stories all the time about the 'nature of things'.
With increased knowledge, the stories change with less reliance on Gods, sometimes.
Or other 'gods' or 'idols' replace them...
I'm sure we can all think of an exaggerated or idealized person or thing.
Some have already mentioned Trump...myths continue.
2. Myths allow for multiple explanations...and are often humorous.
As does philosophy. Even the more analytical, eternally argued over.
3. Myths are conservative. Innovation is slow.
How true is that? There are many different interpretations.
Consider the different aspects of myth:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/myth/Myth-in-culture
The author compares Greek philosophy which 'represented a burst of creativity'
How so? From which multiplicity of Greek stories to which Greek theories?
4. Myths are self-justifying. The inspiration of the gods was enough to ensure their validity.
Divine inspiration is the validation for the story?
Perhaps some thought that way, but not all.
Stories are told by ordinary people to relate their experiences and any wisdom gleaned.
The creativity of poets and prophets is inspired by real life and imagination.
I would argue that myths/stories include argumentation, as in demonstrations of opposite views and can indeed be humorous as in the Dialogues of Plato.
Innovators are not necessarily persuaded of their 'truth just because they thought of them'.
What does the author mean by: 'And now, oddly we are without an explanation for creativity'?
An interesting article to consider and question.
Thanks @javi2541997
Wow. That is some general statement or claim to make.
How true is it?
Where is the evidence; how do you know?
Yes, that's true. I didn't want to put the point number 5 because I was worried about being so tiresome. Nevertheless, I see you shared ir anyway, so thank you so much. Appreciated it.
Quoting Amity
Easy. Just check out what the millionaires spend their money: meta-verses, cryto-coins, fake internet worlds, artificial cells to live longer, private trips to Mars or Moon, etc...
Those "investments" are pure materialistic. There is not philosophy or imagination on it. I only see it as selfish people showing off their power and value over the rest.
I think we really missed what philosophy teach us: happiness, ethics, wisdom, reasoning, etc... and all of these virtues are not monetary.
And then I noticed there was a follow-up...more questions.
Wherein lies the motivation for all of this text?
Quoting The Principles of Friesian Philosophy
Quoting The Proceedings of the Friesian School
I agree quoting and reading directly from an article can be tiresome. But what's one more little characteristic of myths, especially if it and the comparisons are questionable?
It's only tiresome if no questions are asked...and so far, the text has proved a useful starting point.
Thanks.
Thanks for your kindly words, Amity. Appreciated them a lot.
Whenever I start a thread I am worried about if the users would like it or not...
Quoting The Principles of Friesian Philosophy
I fully recommend you that philophical website. It is so interesting and there is a lot of information. You can learn a lot!
Quoting javi2541997
That is a different kind of materialism, as you probably know.
You referred to 'scientific materialism', one definition:
Scientific materialism
Quoting science meets religion: scientific materialism
Is it true that we all 'live in the same social context' which may or may not depend on this worldview?
How many people find any kind of 'truth based on some mathematical formulas'?
I doubt the truth of your claim that: 'we forget and give up on imagination'.
Imagination is an inherent aspect of thought.
Quoting SEP: Imagination
I understand that concern. What matters is that it inspires and provokes thought.
You do that exceedingly well.
I've started threads that don't inspire others :groan:
But that's not my prime motivation. I also don't bother too much about its popularity or lifespan.
Sometimes, it is an article or thought that I want to share and explore, just for the hell of it.
Usually, too lightweight and not obviously 'philosophical'! :chin:
I prefer your kind of discussion which informs and leads to interesting questions and discussion.
Cheers :party: :flower:
Quoting javi2541997
Thanks, I've clearly had a quick look and yes, it's interesting but not so sure it's for me.
To be honest, I personally think most of the people think in this way. In my view there are two different types of language: pure linguistic (fulfilled by philosophy, readings, mythology, religion, rhetoric, history, etc...) and mathematical (Physics, Chemistry, Maths, engineering, etc...)
Both groups have a common goal: understand the world and try to find out a meaningful life. I prefer the first ones rather than mathematical language.
Nevertheless, it looks like that there is a big part of the population who is sceptical about some theories if you do not show them with "essays" and "formulas"
For example: look how obsessed is the people with Artificial Intelligence or Metaverses.
I would sound "out of phase" but I think I will learn more about my life thanks to both mythology and philosophy rather than "AI" or robots resolving formulas.
Quoting Amity
Agreed. We share the same point. Of course imagination is inherent to our thought. I was only claiming more "freedom" in our imagination trying to avoid taboos or limitations.
Thanks to imagination both mythology and philosophy developed through the years. But another important fact is how the thinkers/philosophers get rid of obstacles.
I experienced the same feeling :cry: I remember starting some threads and didn't get any answer... but as you perfectly said: that's not my prime motivation and it doesn't affect my motivation either.
'Most of the people' - in which community? Perhaps a particular field but I have no idea what the ordinary person knows of 'mathematical formulas'?
Quoting javi2541997
Applied creative language and thinking are arguably necessary tools in both fields of art and science.
Types of thinking which interact:
https://www.magneticmemorymethod.com/types-of-thinking/
Quoting javi2541997
Again, which 'big part of the population'?
Do you mean in academia?
Theories, I think, are by their very nature required to be shared and shown in the language of the discipline.
Quoting javi2541997
How is that 'out of phase'?
Quoting javi2541997
I think I understand. You mean away from the extreme or inflexible dogmas/institutions?
I don't think that is the same as your original claim but never mind.
Quoting javi2541997
Yes.
Consider the kind and nature of obstacles; the internal and external.
The stories we tell ourselves and others tell us. How true are they?
Thanks for the conversation :sparkle:
It is true that an ordinary person doesn't care about mathematical formulas. Nevertheless, I assume that he or she gives more credibility to scientific evidences rather than philosophical papers. For example: the Moon was always been a subject of study to mythology but until the humans didn't end up there they didn't give a "real" credibility.
Quoting Amity
What I mean is that probably my way of thinking is away from modernism or new era of virtual content.
Quoting Amity
No. What I mean is the possibility to develop arguments and essays in a pure humanistic view. Not depending on scientific validity for verification.
Quoting Amity
Thanks to you as always! :flower:
Thanks for your clarification.
I so respect you, and other TPF participants, whose mother tongue is not English :100:
I couldn't even write a simple sentence in Spanish without the help of Google, even then...
Muchas gracias, como siempre :flower:
Como siempre :pray:
I see your point, but I cannot say that people regard Mythology as a world of untruths. We all know what important role played and a revered place it had in antiquity throughout the world. And that's why it is still and will always be taught in schools.
On the other hand, the word "myth" has today two main connotations, one literal --referring directly to mythology-- and one figurative --falsehood, as you mentioned. But yes, since we are too far from antiquity, the second one prevails. Unfortunately!
Man has the tendency to degrade things that were once very important but are not used any more to a considerable degree. And as I can see clearly, Philosophy is also included in them. Unfortunately!
It is not so simple:
Quoting Fooloso4
Aristotle said that poetry is more philosophical and serious than history, because poetry tends to give general or universal truths while history gives particular facts. The poet is a "maker of stories" (Poetics, 145b)
In so far as such stories are not factual, they are fabrications. But they represent more general or universal truths than a description of some particular thing that happened at some particular time.
Plato's myth of the metals is called a lie because it is a fabrication. It did not happen. Socrates is a maker of stories. The truth of the story is that we are not all equal by nature.
Not an expert here - 10 minutes of "analysis" by Agent Smith doesn't hold a candle to decades of dedicated study by qualified mythologists.
Agree.
I will never understood the tendency to degrade both philosophy and Greek mythology. My only guess is that some powerful people who control the education don't want to have critical thinkers.
First off I want to try and figure out what definitions and explanations you have of the term myth? By this I am asking for different possible uses of the term and any nuances you add to personalise this term.
My take is that each and every individual has a personal mythos over which - and from which - we build up our representation of the world allowing us to navigate it. In another line of thought I view the use of myth in teaching and education as fundamental to human development that has been somewhat overshadowed by the written form.
Anyway, will read this thread more carefully later and see if I can pick anything out that will help us engage more on this topic.
I just looked up the Greek word "mythos" (= myth) in my dictionary of Ancient Greek Language --a huge one!. Both meanings are included, but with a slightly different description. The first meaning refers to speech, narration, story, independently of being true or false. The second one refers again to story but imaginary or ficticious. A known example is Aesop's fables.
At some point, the word "mythos", used with the first meaning, was replaced by "logos" (=- speech, etc.), so the second meaning only was kept in frequent use, which is also the case today. Note also that the word we use for "fiction" is "mythoplasia" (= creation, making up of a myth), based on the ancient Greek verb "mythopoiein" (= create a myth).
The word "myth" indeed was very important for ancient Greeks and had --and still has-- a lot of derivatives.
Quoting Agent Smith
Si ! :smile:
You are right. I should had started with a basic definition of mythology.
The paper I read a few days ago contains a brief definition of what we can consider as mythos or mythology: "Mythopoeic" means "making" (??????, poieîn, from which the word "poet" is derived) "myth" (?????, mûthos, means report, tale, story)
Thanks for sharing. It is very helpful for this thread! :up:
As I said to @Agent Smith, Mythology has never been degraded. It has kept is "status" and value, and that's why it is still taught in schools today (the Greek ones, at least). The word "myth" is what has been degraded.
Quoting javi2541997
This is unfortunately true! And esp. the clergy, with the Orthodox Church in the first place. Together with fascism and totalitarianism, religious dogmatism does its best to keep people in ignorance, by either hiding or falsifying facts and history in general. I read recently what is taught in the Russian schools today about the war in Ukraine. It makes you vomit!
I'm interested, deeply so, in dilemmas and its close cousins if you know what I mean. Making hard choices, tough decisions, finding oneself between Scylla and Charybis, that sorta thing. Life seems to be about choices - imagine a complex decision web that represents your life. Can you point to any myths - culture irrelevant - that revolve around this subject? Muchas gracias señor!
You can also check this, besides @javi's excellent description of his topic: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/736855
(It's about the root of the word "myth".)
Excellent topic and presentation, @javi! :up:
(I came to the source of the thread, well, after I have reacted to comments in it! :grin:)
I am very much interested in anthropology and the role religion has played in cultural development (not merely conventional modern ideas of religions - as in organisations). I have come to regard mythos as the basis of human communication.
I have reason to believe that verbal communication was developed after play acting forms of communication and that even today humans are pretty much geared to explaining the world by acting out it is just that verbal language (spoken, written and/or signed) has come to dominate human thought (note: thinking is not necessarily something that involved words).
I also have fairly solid grounds to state that human beings understand the world, first and foremost, as an emotional landscape. On top of this our disposition to emotional interaction (with each other or the world in general) plays into how we learn and communicate ideas. Memory is essential for passing on information and various mnemonic techniques work so, so well due to using emotions as prompts to recall information - ideas laden with extreme emotionally charged contents are more readily remembered.
I should pause here as the most difficult problem I have here is that I am using words to explain something that is absent of verbal baggage and underlies our very being. This is not me stating that language is or is not innate, just that at some point in our evolution we developed a broader tenporal understanding of the world, and langauge (as we commonly refer to it), sprung forth and readily attached itself to our underlying mythos (which is an intersubjective beast being both subjective and yet clearly objective as can be evidenced by looking at common markers across various traditions and our growing appreciation of fundamental human traits).
Any thoughts on that semi-ramble?
:sparkle: mythos : logos :: magic : logic :fire:
... the latter constitutes the attempt (à la philosophy) to formalize / conceptualize / naturalize the former.
I just read this definition of the word "dilemma" from a standard source (https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dilemma): "A situation requiring a choice between equally undesirable alternatives." (Stress is mine.) How can such a totally unacceptable definition survive? I value and use dictionaries a lot, but sometimes they make me mad. My Greek dictionary says "desirable or undesirable". Which is actually the case and it is pragmatic.
Now, if I undestand well, you want to know about some ancient myth that refers to or of which the central point is a dilemma or dilemmas. Is that right? Or is it just a rhetoric question?
I think you are saying something that I have been wondering how to say for a long time. I would say it's a whole topic in itself. For me the question came up again as I was reading recent threads about truth. The logic of truth presents difficult problems and fine surgery is needed. One point that does not tend to come up in discussions is that we have a fiery emotional attachment to truth, guarding it jealously for our own beliefs and resenting claims to it that we regard as undeserving. It is related to trust, social cohesion and sanity itself. I don't think this observation will help directly with unpicking the logic of truth. But there is an emotional background that lends an atmosphere, a flavour, to the discussions of logic. And there is something to explore about why our relationship with truth is both intellectual and so strongly emotional. I don't know whether I'm riffing to your tune exactly, but for what it's worth.
Quoting I like sushi
Just to add some more comments to your arguments, I would like to share a good work called How to Do Things With Words by J.L. Austin.
According to this philopher: A statement is performative when nothing is stated or described but an act is performed. The performative is subjected to conditions of "happiness", depending on a situational (or circumstantial) context.
Therefore, it elaborates a taxonomy of the different ways we can have of doing something when saying something, divided into three categories: the locutionary act (saying something is doing something), the illocutionary act (when saying something we are doing something) and the perlocutionary act (because we say something we are doing something). It recognizes in the illocutionary act the essential act of the word, therefore it tries to establish a taxonomy of the different values ??that the verbs of an illocutionary act can adopt.
In the terms you use I would simply ask what kind of characters Intellect, Logic, Truth, and Emotion might be and how they would relate and interact with each other in the stage in your head?
When thinking about this keep in mind that infants have strong emotional interest when watching abstract shapes move around. For example they will watch a Square moving towards a Circle and hitting it repeatedly. They are seeing the Square attack the Circle. This is a well documented phenomenon of how humans interpret abstract objects interacting. We see an emotional act playing out where ever we can. This is long before we learn to speak.
Si, si!
I found this :point: Sophie's choice on Wikipedia. Then there's the trolley problem (re utilitarianism) and the axe murderer at the door (re Kantian ethics). Have you heard of Protagoras' paradox of the court? It's worth the read - the counterdilemma "solution" to dilemmas.
@schopenhauer1 did allude to this point about life - it's kinda like a torture chamber game where you havta make a choice between two/more undesirable options, one after another till we die and perhaps even beyond, in the afterlife. :scream: Takes the fun outta free will if you ask me.
You raised a good point in re the choices needn't necessarily be undesirable, they could both be desirable and could be had (double the pleasure or something like that) at the same time (polyamory was probably the norm whether all parties were willing paricipants or not).
Too, quite notably, the logical OR is inclusive.
Interesting, oui?
[Re: Dillemas in Mythology]
I used the Web ro "refresh" my memory ... but I rather found new stuff! :grin:
The following might statisfy your curiosity ...
(Actually, I worked for you, because you could easily get all this info yourself! So, you owe me one! :wink:)
- Ethical Decision-Making in Greek Mythology
https://ut-flags.medium.com/ethical-decision-making-in-greek-mythology-162ec24b25b1
- Greek Mythologys Double Standard- The Moral Dilemma of Revenge
https://www.academia.edu/29219286/Greek_Mythology_s_Double_Standard_The_Moral_Dilemma_of_Revenge
- Are there any examples of Greek myths where a character is faced with a moral dilemma and must make a decision?
https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-examples-of-Greek-myths-where-a-character-is-faced-with-a-moral-dilemma-and-must-make-a-decision
The last ref I think is the best, since it actually refers to your own question and has a lot of answers in it.
BTW, referring to the expression "Between Scylla and Charybdis" that you brought up and the myth that lies behind it, and particularly "choosing the lesser of two evils", there's a good match with the position I formulated recenty on the Trolley problem, namely "Avoid major damage" .
Quoting Agent Smith
Interessante, si.
You're welcome.
All ye lovers and worshippers of Sophia, take notice that there are other gods. As you look down from your temples, you see Psyche, Ego, Mars, and Venus, your muses and your fates, and imagine them your servants not your gods. You think Poseidon is tamed; you think yourselves, indeed, above Sophia herself. To stand above the gods is a precarious place to dream oneself. Beware!
:fire:
Myth is what we call other people's religion.
? Joseph Campbell
Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions, for example, are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves believers because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as atheists because they think religious metaphors are lies.
? Joseph Campbell, Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor
If even one person could master both Philosophy and Myth (and Art) in a way that upheld Platos ideals of Truth, Beauty, and Goodness... and find a way to share it with the world... maybe we could find a way out of the desert we are wandering in.
Or maybe someone already has? And we are still trying to grasp it? Would not be too surprising.
:up: I'm sure there are some people out there who worship movie stars - thespians who've acquired legendary status among their fans, becoming role models to emulate and fall in love with.
Hello Alkis, I have been reading interesting information on Greek philosophy and culture. I remember debating with you in this thread (and another one) the importance of Greek lexicon and different dialects.
Whenever you want or have free time, I recommend you to read this paper: The Eponymous Archons of Athens
Anyway, I think it is important to reopen this thread because I perceived two interesting facts on Greek philosophy: "Epic Greek dialect" and "Arcadian Greek dialect" . The author says: The Greeks believed that the Ionians had long lived where they did but that the Dorians had arrived rather late. Indeed, another Greek dialect, not shown on the map, is "Epic" Greek, the language of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Epic Greek is more like Ionic and Aeolic than the other dialects. Classical Greek culture, including philosophy, began in Ionia, whose name became the word for "Greek" in all the languages to the East,...
Interesting! Do you agree with his opinion?
He continues with another fact he says is important to consider regarding the root of philosophy: Even more intriguing is a dialect isolated in the heart of the Peloponnesus, Arcadian. Surrounded by Doric and Northwestern, Arcadian is nevertheless similar to Cypriot, the dialect of Greek spoken in Cyprus. This suggests that Arcadian was the original language of the south of Greece, overrun and isolated by the Doric invasion, with the Cypriots either as a now isolated outlier or as actual refugees from the West. On Cyprus the Greeks also used a unique syllabary to write their language. The Cypriots apparently have therefore preserved, uniquely, the writing system of their Mycenaean ancestors.
When I read this paper, I thought: Were the original philosophical works written in Epic Greek or Arcadian Greek? It is sooooo interesting.
The map of Greece that the author referred to in his paper is this:
Quoting javi2541997
Hi Javi.
Thanks for the ref. I just had a look. The content is too "literary" and "historical" for me. My background in and my knowledge of both literature and history are quite limited. And my interests in them follow the trend or pattern.
Quoting javi2541997
Same. Sorry about that! :sad:
Quoting javi2541997
It may well be so. I can't know.
Quoting javi2541997
Same.
Really sorry, Javi, that I cannot share your enthusiasm! :sad:
It is okay, friend. I appreciate your effort and consideration to at least have a look into the paper. I think my enthusiasm was out of control whenever I ended my reading because I am interested in Greece as much as I am in Japan. You are right that the paper contains more aspects of literature or history than philosophy itself. Yet, I will be reading more stuff related to this topic: Greece, Cyprus, Macedonia and the origin of the Greek lexicon. Thus, I think my knowledge will be more extensive regarding to Ancient Literature. :smile:
In the same way, I read Kazantzakis. What a good discovery! :cool:
Cheers!
Yeah, good stuff! :up:
Kazantzakis's works can be considered as pure philosophical content, not only his amazing talent for writing novels and personalising characters! Thanks to Alkis, I discovered this author and, yes, what a good discovery. It reminds me of when I read Mishima the first time. :100:
Lynne Kelly will probably interest you.
I agree. Good point. :up:
Quoting I like sushi
Thanks for commenting and your recommendation. Appreciated it.