Mythology, Religion, Anthopology and Science: What Makes Sense, or not, Philosophically?
I am writing this thread as a response to @
@180Proof in a discussion of the Buddhist concept of the Middle Way. He queries the relationship between religion and philosophy. I am extremely interested in this relationship and whether religion was central in this, or a later development. I am writing this thread because it seems outside of the scope of the idea of Buddhist ethics.
Also, I am reading Karen Armstrong's , ' The Great Transformation: The World in the Time of Buddha, Socrates, Confusiaa and Jeremiah', (2006). She looks at the time between 800 and 300 BC in thinking about religious ideas. She also explores of Socrates, Buddha, Confucius and Jeremiah, as aspects of religious beliefs.In.addition, she looks at Karl Jaspers' idea of the axial age in thinking of belief, especially religious belief. The idea of 'God' or 'divinity' encompasses the issue of inner and outer 'reality', subjectivity and objectivity. It also encompasses idea of mythology and story as narrative understanding. This may be opposed to some perspectives of science and objectivity.
I am of the view that inner as opposed to outer, objective aspects of 'reality' are important here in the tradition of human understanding. Science, similarly to religion may be embedded in mythic understanding. What do you think, especially in relation to the concept of myth?.As far as I see it is a topic involving dialogue between ancient philosophy, as well as anthropological thinking and research. How may the development of ideas about 'gods' or one God be understood in the history of religion and philosophy?.
@180Proof in a discussion of the Buddhist concept of the Middle Way. He queries the relationship between religion and philosophy. I am extremely interested in this relationship and whether religion was central in this, or a later development. I am writing this thread because it seems outside of the scope of the idea of Buddhist ethics.
Also, I am reading Karen Armstrong's , ' The Great Transformation: The World in the Time of Buddha, Socrates, Confusiaa and Jeremiah', (2006). She looks at the time between 800 and 300 BC in thinking about religious ideas. She also explores of Socrates, Buddha, Confucius and Jeremiah, as aspects of religious beliefs.In.addition, she looks at Karl Jaspers' idea of the axial age in thinking of belief, especially religious belief. The idea of 'God' or 'divinity' encompasses the issue of inner and outer 'reality', subjectivity and objectivity. It also encompasses idea of mythology and story as narrative understanding. This may be opposed to some perspectives of science and objectivity.
I am of the view that inner as opposed to outer, objective aspects of 'reality' are important here in the tradition of human understanding. Science, similarly to religion may be embedded in mythic understanding. What do you think, especially in relation to the concept of myth?.As far as I see it is a topic involving dialogue between ancient philosophy, as well as anthropological thinking and research. How may the development of ideas about 'gods' or one God be understood in the history of religion and philosophy?.
Comments (62)
I am sure that the issue of hows and whys of religious thinking have been explored on so many threads. One major aspect may the psychology of religion, and why do people seek to attribute so much to gods or God?
Of course, it could be turned around, as into the question of whether psychological aspects are a question of higher metaphysics? I see it as very complex, but I am probably someone who overthinks. This relates back to your query about 'names' for the same thing', because it may be a matter of language and framing in human explanations.
The concept of 'God' or ''gods' is interesting. It is worth considering to what extent it represents 'a higher reality' as such, or a tool in human understanding? This may be an issue which spans psychology and anthropology, as well as philosophy. It may go back to core basics of metaphysics, and how these are constructed by human beings.
For Joseph Campbell, myth was somewhat like the educational operating code for integrating folks into their culture. He had used the metaphor of a womb often to refer to cultural providence/support structures. The stereotypes we value, the stories we tell about those types, help to guide the development of persons to be functional members of society. I think Campbell conceived of the informational global age as producing a kind of wasteland of shattered or diminished cultures which poses new adaptive challenges to individuals trying to make their way in world.
Ideology is likely a good stand in for the word myth. Do we need ideologies to live healthy lives? Which ones ought we accept and embrace?
The issues of ideologies in relation to myth is a good question. That is especially in relation to 'a kind of wasteland of shattered of shattered or diminished cultures'. It involves the idea of meaning, hope but may be a little different from worldviews in which an entirely different stance was taken. Some of these were utopian and some built upon differing metaphysics entirely, such as resurrection of the dead.
They're good questions, but also very big questions. There is a description you might sometimes encounter, 'scientia sacra', meaning the sacred science. It is not a popular term, but still has currency amongst the advocates of the perennial philosophy, such as Seyyed Hossein Nasr and others. This is the theme that there are universal, undelying tenets of wisdom which are made manifest in the individual cultural forms throughout history. In the pre-modern world, there was a perceived unity between the human being as 'microcosm' and the universe, Cosmos ('as above, so below', although the traditionalist vision has been undermined by science in some important respects.)
But it's a vast field of study, which can be approached through a number of perspectives. Karen Armstrong is a good source on that. Huston Smith might be another to consider. Joseph Campbell, as mentioned already. James Hillman another. There's also the more up-to-date and contemporary approaches, like Brian Swimme's evolutionary cosmology. Gary Lachmann's books might be of interest also.
An excerpt of a post from a (2022) thread The Philosopher will not find God
Quoting 180 Proof
In other words, it seems g/G is just a primitive atavistic personification of (an) unknowable-inexplicable power(s), likely beginning as animism (i.e. the world is enchanted aka "magical thinking"). Later Mythos had been invented to ethno-narratively memorialize such personified anthropomorphized power(s) by and around which (the) cultus formed and then, iirc, medieval scholars had called "religion" (from religare). For two and half millennia the Western philosophical tradition has striven to exorcize, or domesticate (deflate), ineliminable Mythos (i.e. narrative g/G-of-the-gaps pathos) by making explicit reflectively meditating on (its) Logos. :fire:
(2020) An excerpt of a post from your thread What is the purpose of dreaming and what do dreams tell us?
Quoting 180 Proof
Also, Jack, from your (2021) thread To What Extent Does Philosophy Replace Religion For Explanations and Meaning?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/614799
I don't know enough to speak about the historical relationship between religion and philosophy, but from my modern perspective, they fill very similar roles. Whether or not God exists is a matter of fact - yes or no - but religions are not just about God or gods. They also have associated metaphysics that guide people's understanding of the universe just as the kinds of philosophies we discuss here do. That being said, I wonder if religions have more of a focus on looking inward rather than outward. I don't know enough about comparative religion or comparative philosophy to say whether that's true.
I think rational-pragmatic philosophies aspire to much more than 'superstitiously living according to the folk stories of miracles and magic' canonized by religions (& cults).
@Jack Cummins
When you say "the concept of myth", does it mean something like Platonic world of idea, which is separated from the material world, and out of reach? Or would it mean some sort of hidden principles and entities within the religious sects and organisations with the artificial makeup for seclusion from the general public?
I will explore Seyedd Hossain because I haven't come across him. It does seem that we have read some of the same authors, Huston Smith, Gary Lachman, James Hillman and James Hillman. I don't think that James Hillman is that well known as you are the first person I have come across who has and I find him to be a very good writer. I also find Edward Edinger's , 'Ego and Archetype very helpful, as well as the writings of Mircea Eliade.
It is a very large topic, as you say. I first became interested in when my school English teacher encouraged reading on the topic. A few years ago I did a term long course on mythology as well as an evening class on anthropology. I would like to study more anthropology and have done some reading of Levi Strauss, as well as Mary Douglas's 'Purity and Danger'. The culture assumptions of the sacred and taboo are important in thinking of ideas about good and evil.
Yes, the contrast between logos and mythos is an area discussed in previous threads. The problem which I see is if people treat mythos as though it were logos, unable to differentiate this at all. Many conventionally religious people are inclined to do this and it took me some time to be able to do so.
However, it is difficult though, not just about the existence of God but areas such as the ideas like the fall of the angels and humanity. I was definitely brought up to believe in this and even now see it as standing for something possibly 'real' because there is a lot that is unknown about ancient history. At one stage, I read writers like Graham Hancock and some of this may be mythic but the idea of the Nephilim race is one which I find intriguing. I have come across the idea that in thinking of evolution this was a process in which humans slept with apes.
Some of the ideas are likely to be symbolic but the correspondences between the planets and early gods is important in thinking of the ancient worldviews. Sometimes, people assume that ancient people were 'primitive' but cultures like Egypt and Rome were extremely advanced.
I enjoy mythic fiction, including Marion Zimmer Bradley and Bernard Cornwell. Being half Irish by descent, I am particularly interested in Celtic and British legends, including those in the Magbinon, Arthur and those surrounding Glastonbury. Tolkien also presents a fascinating journey into the mythic imagination.
It is definitely true that a lot of religious beliefs have been a factor of toxicity, especially in the development of war. But, this may something about the human nature and mass psychology as much as the ideas of the leaders. If the teachings of Christ or the Buddha had been followed fully, it should have led to less war as opposed to creating it. In particular, the culture of Christendom is so opposed to the Biblical teachings themselves, especially in the development of material wealth as opposed to the Gospel teachings.
As it is, humanity is made up of so many diverging traditions and there is so much conflict and war. It is not clear that mere loss of belief in spiritual reality will lead to a more peaceful one necessarily. If only it was that simple and the problem may be fundamentalism in general. There is religious fundamentalism and even atheistic fundamentalism. A lot is about concrete, dogmatic thinking.
If people are more able to understand the symbolic dimension it can be a source of wisdom, and does not have to come down to belief in God. Spirituality is not dependent on gods or God, but about self-awareness and wisdom within. The inner psyche may be a starting point for transformation of consciousness, which may lead to greater understanding of others ' needs and of all living beings.
I wonder about that. As i understand the most direct notions of what we might call divinity, the early people who placed a superhuman figure at the center of their origin myths did not differentiate realities - human psyche, the physical environment, their group identity and their system of ethics was all of a piece. Science is the practical aspect of living: how to get what you need with maximal efficiency and minimal risk. this requires learning how physics work and involves making tools - technology. Philosophy/religion is the people's relationship to the world and one another. this requires formulating foundational principles - usually attributed to the creator-deity, whether that figure intervenes is daily life or not. On this are based the rules of behaviour - law, in our present, more formal systems.
horizontally organized, egalitarian and homogeneous societies didn't need a the active participation of a god or gods - they had nature spirits and ancestors to make mischief or help them out of scrapes, or just to account for remarkable situations.
That one big capitalized god is a latecomer to belief-systems, introduced with the vertical organization of society with a supreme all-powerful ruler, as in nation-states. Even so, the pantheon model persisted well into the age of civilized empires, like egypt and rome. The supposedly single Catholic god even got divided in three parts and was provided with an enormous civil service of saints and angels. it seems even very large nations that wish to present a monolithic source of control can't do with just one powerful being to run the whole shebang.
:nerd: :100: :sparkle:
I'm shocked! Shocked! to find you have a different attitude about this than I do. I've been trying to get myself to start a new discussion about this. I keep getting half way through and then losing traction.
I do agree that religious perspectives are more inclined to looking within. Putting it together with life in the outer world is where it gets messy. Ultimately, the two should work together, but they frequently become separated so much and become so hollow.
Jesus recognised this when he criticised the superficial hypocrisy of the Pharisees. The Gnostics, who looked at inner or symbolic interpretations of the life of Jesus were outlawed as heretics. Their accounts are so different, including suggestions of Mary Magdalene as Jesus' partner. This is so different from the conventional ideas about sexuality within Christianity, which were based on the ideas of the Paul.
Also, in many ways spiritual ideas underlying many religions involved shared views of wisdom, even though there have been so many rifts between the different religions and traditions within these religions.
I think this is clearly not true. It's the party line spouted by anti-religious bigots without providing more than anecdotal evidence. I think of all the wars and genocides started by non-religious actors - the Mongol invasions; Germany in World War 2; Communism in Russia, China, and Cambodia just to start. Sure there were plenty of wars where religion had a major role, but in those cases, as far as I can see, religion is just along for the ride. The big wars and genocides are started by people who want power, and then more power and then more. What's my evidence for this? Well, it's mostly anecdotal just like yours, but I don't have to provide evidence. You're the one who made a claim, so you have to provide justification for your beliefs.
I think of this from the perspective of Taoist philosophy as expressed in the writings of Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. In my experience, Taoism is an inward-looking philosophy - it's all about self-awareness. At the same time, following Lao Tzu's principles leads to action in the real world. You have to go inward before you can go outward. I think that religions in general have this same sort of inward focus. That's definitely a "seems to me" claim given my lack of any deep experience with religion.
To understand the development, one has to understand the intuitive rationality of animism, and the counterintuitive nature of the modern, dead world. One has to disabuse oneself of modernity.
Any sailor or fisherman can tell you that the sea is sometimes calm, and sometimes playful, and sometimes angry. Who could not take being struck by lightening personally? Who is not afraid that their local dormant volcano will one day wake up? Even the rocks grow hair; what kind of fool thinks they only are alive and the world is dead?
from this rational position, try and justify modernity.
I've been reading Hans Jonas: The Phenomenon of Life (1966) which is a highly-regarded work in phenomenology and existentialism. He points out that for pre-moderns, life was the norm, what with the Universe being so obviously alive, whilst death was anomalous, something that had to be explained, in terms of the classical myths of immortality. He explains that this flips with the Renaissance so that dead matter becomes the norm, and life itself an anomaly, which now has to be explained in terms of physical laws, so called. Fascinating read.
Well, I'm the kind of fool who thinks the world is undead: a shambling zombie that appears to be moving inexorable towards oblivion as every part(icle) of the cosmic corpse (including maggots like us) burns out, rots, decomposes, cools ... Ask any virus (or Schrödinger's Cat) for (late) moderns "dead" & "alive" are indistinguishable. :smirk:
I am sure that you are correct to suggest that how people live and social organisations of power have a significant role. In particular, the patriarchy played an important role, especially with the suppression of women. Similarly, racism suppressed ideas of the Orient. The dynamics between power and belief are complex and interact. Ideas of gods and God may be used to protect power structures and, similarly, analysis of such beliefs may influence the nature of social systems.
Your point about whether myth is like Plato's realm of ideas is interesting because it does raise the question of another realm, of archetypes. These could be seen as separate from human consciousness and transcendent. However, these evolve alongside culture as symbolic aspects of culture. Humans realise the human imagination and contribute to it, as aspects of the dreaming mind, as part symbolic reality, but whether it exists as an independent realm, as qualia, is a good question.
I wonder how similar animism and panpsychism is. There is some challenge to the idea that matter and mind are separate in the notion of quantum entanglement. But, that is physics, but as part of 'modern' metaphysics. The 'modern', or 'postmodern' ways of matter as solid and primary, objective 'reality' are challenged. Even en the notion of the intersubjective realm involves a complex weaving in between outer and inner perspectives in thinking of the nature of symbolic structures.
Power imposes belief. at least on the lower orders. the priestly class tells everyone else their gods' demands, and the faithful obey. the system is enforced through a system of bribes, threats and bonding rituals - which, again, include alternate sacrifices and celebrations.
But this only holds true of civilized, organized modern religions of the last 6000 years. for maybe 30,000 years before that, there was as great a diversity of beliefs and practices as there were primitive societies.
It could be argued that 'God' is consciousness, but this has been seen in an anthropomorphic way. Both theists and atheists may be talking about 'ultimate reality', but this way it is named and described are so different, as a source of arguments and perspectives.
With the history of religion, which emerged after magic, there were ideas of coercion and sacrifice. Even in Christianity, Jesus represents 'the sacrificial lamb', to atone for human 'sin'. With diversity, which may have preceded this, there is the possibility of a future return to diversity in the aftermath of so much which has occurred in human history, although from the way the world looks at present there is an extremely long way for this to happen. There may be small steps but if it is likely to be thwarted by hierarchies of power, which represent the interests of the elite.
i don't understand 'religion emerged after magic'. Emerged from what? What kind of magic precedes it and how is that magic distinct from religion?
All hierarchies involve coercion, in all aspects of life.
Quoting Jack Cummins
The sacrifice and resurrection of a young, virile god or semi-divine entity in order to benefit humanity appears in many early agrarian civilizations. it represents the cycle of seasons; death in winter, rebirth in spring.
but many other kinds of sacrifice are demanded of the people by civilized gods : the killing of prized humans [unlike like Isaac, most did not get a last-minute reprieve] and valuable livestock; giving food and money to the church, going on pilgrimage, holding fasts and vigils, etc.
Quoting Jack Cummins
there's no guarantee those power structures will endure.
I think this may be answered by looking at it in the context of our evolving ability to think in terms of cause and effect, to make sense of the consequences of whatever may be. Combine this with the quintessential question asked by humans - "Why?" - and you have the foundation for gods, religion, mythology and philosophy.
Of course, this all necessitated our evolution of a mind that could conduct an inner narrative.
Found that quote:
[quote=Hans Jonas, The Phenomenon of Life:Towards a Philosophy of Biology] The tremendously enlarged universe of modern cosmology is conceived as a field of inanimate masses and forces which operate according to the laws of inertia and of quantitative distribution in space. This denuded substratum of all reality could only be arrived at through a progressive expurgation of vital features from the physical record and through strict abstention from projecting into its image our own felt aliveness. In the process the ban on anthropomorphism was extended to zoomorphism in general. What remained is the residue of the reduction toward the properties of mere extension which submit to measurement and hence to mathematics. These properties alone satisfy the requirements of what is now called exact knowledge: and representing the only knowable aspect of nature they, by a tempting substitution, came to be regarded as its essential aspect too: and if this, then as the only real in reality.
This means that the lifeless has become the knowable par excellence and is for that reason also considered the true and only foundation of reality. It is the "natural" as well as the original state of things. Not only in terms of relative quantity but also in terms of ontological genuineness, nonlife is the rule, life the puzzling exception in physical existence.
Accordingly, it is the existence of life within a mechanical universe which now calls for an explanation, and explanation has to be in terms of the lifeless. Left over as a borderline case in the homogeneous physical world-view, life has to be accounted for in the terms of that view.[/quote]
Could it be the case that the world with many Gods would allow the people more freedom to choose which God to worship, therefore allow more creativity in arts, diversity and the way of life?
One God system might fall into an authoritarian society which restricts people's freedom to choose their preference in choosing their own Gods, and the way of life, and also creativity in arts, as from the historical fact of the medieval Christianity in Europe.
After the fall of the ancient Roman empire, the Christianity took over the control of the governments and justice system. The one God based religious authority has ruled the whole Europe with the iron fist controlling every part of human life for almost 1500 years.
Sure, Charles Taylor speaks of this in A Secular Age. A dominant narrative, particularly with atheists, is that contemporary secular culture and scientism is just what you get when you apply reason to the world without superstition. He calls these "subtraction narratives." His point is that these subtraction narratives tend to ignore all the positive ways secularism was constructed, and indeed that some of its core tenants grow out of Reformation and Enlightenment era theology quite explicitly.
We could also consider here the secular "religious" holidays of the French Revolution, or more successful attempts since to create secular "festivals," or to turn religious holidays into secular festivals (e.g. the transformation of American Thanksgiving into secular Thanksgiving/Black Friday, or Christmas into a festival primarily of decorations, gifts, consumption, and a more amorphous "Christmas spirit" of good cheer and benevolence.)
Here is a related passage from C.S. Lewis:
But of course, this shift did not come about by "removing superstition" alone, as it is often presented (nor did the "new science" immediately result in any rapid advance in technological progress or living standards-Europe's "Great Divergence" from Asia"- for another few centuries). Sometimes you will hear it presented this way though way: "oh, people spoke of the inclinations of rocks before because Aristotle thought rocks fell because they wanted to," (which is, of course, false, he didn't) "but then modern science came and got rid of all that bad baggage and gave us a "clean" view."
Yet this isn't what happened. The idea of the entire universe "obeying laws" was originally created with divinely issued laws in mind. It was created because the Aristotelian idea of a word populated by (relatively) self-determining natures seemed to encroach on divine sovereignty, as did Patristic notions of man attaining freedom and deification through the perfection of the virtues, which returned to him his original divine nature (Christ the God-man being ultimately, the preexisting type of Adam, and not vice versa).
Given some other popular assumptions at the time, any freedom for creatures came at the expensive of freedom for God. Even "only doing what is good" was seen as a limit on divine freedom. Thus, goodness had to be the result of a "moral law" dictated by the inscrutable divine will, while the behavior of natural things had to be the product of a "natural law" likewise dictated. Things don't do what they do because of what they are, so much as everything happens as it does according to inscrutable fiat. Man's reason is too damaged by the Fall to fathom the causes of nature (and this assertion unfathomable of "brute facts" at the center of all things still finds a home in atheistic scientism). The resulting image of Providence is thus far more totalizing (and we might say totalitarian) than that of the Patristics, for instance.
This is key in that various flavors of scientism have both a mythos (i.e. "this view is what results from the triumph of reason and the discarding of superstition, e.g. the "New Athiests") but also a number of dogmas that go along with that vision. For instance, phusus, natures, being discarded in favor of "eternal natural laws" and initial conditions (a major philosophical extrapolation from mathematical physics, rather than "what the math tells us about being.").
But there are different forms of scientism. You have your Camus, Nietzsche, et. al. inspired "Overcomers," who can have a vested interest in smallism and the classical view of evolution as "blind mechanism," and the expulsion of all teleonomy as illusory, since this makes the world properly abusrd, while at the same time placing all moral and aesthetic judgement safely on the "subject" side of the dualist ledger (allowing man to be God within the confines of his own subjectivity), whereas others, e.g. Sam Harris, end pushing to ground almost everything in "neuroscience" (goodness and beauty, and potentially even truth being principles of neuroscience best explored via neuroimaging).
In either case the Problem of the One and the Many seems to haunt all the mythos. You see a constant floundering between a sort of bigism (there is just one thing, the universe, and everything traces back to the inscrutable brute fact of the Big Bang) and smallism (everything is made up of fundamental parts and is reducible to them).Sapolsky's Determined is an excellent example here, because in his efforts to disprove "free will" Sapolsky constantly flips back and forth between bigism and smallism, whenever one or the other helps his arguments (i.e. "you cannot be a [relatively] self-determining whole because your behavior relates to individual neurons (parts), but you also cannot be self-determining because all efficient causes can be traced back forever, to the brute fact of the Big Bang.") There is no via media available here because a framework of "laws and obedience" is very much baked into the mythos, as is the reduction of reason to mere ratio (dividing and composing in propositional knowledge), which pulls out the epistemic ground for any true wholes and seems to make nominalism inevitable.
Some folks seem to think the platonic objects do exist in the real world, but it seems to be the cause for the confusion. As you say Platonic objects are imaginable, thinkable and describable as ideas, but they are not solidly existing objects in the real world.
And sadly some folks seem to confuse the symbols and signs in the external world which are to convey the ideas and information as physical objects, so the ideas must exist in the real world as solid entities.
But if they are coming from some religious background or upbringings, then maybe the confusion originates from their historical living experiences rather than their thoughts. Therefore would it be reasonable to say that the historical living experiences take priority in judgements over thoughts?
I am sure that there is an overlap between magic and religion, but magic often involves belief in nature as alive as opposed to being about a specific deity. For example, there is the idea of sympathetic magic, which underlies systems of voodoism. There is also a shamanic element to magic.
The story of the resurrection involves a shamanic aspect. It is true that there is a recurrent theme of a dying god, rising again, such as in the myth of Osiris.
With your comment about power structures may change, that is where myth and story come into play. It is likely that the stories we read influence what happens in real life, like the Book of Revelation, and Orwell's '1984'. When I read Orwell's writing it is as if he is describing the way the world has become in many ways. Therefore, fiction authors have a big responsibility, just like philosophers, because they provide the mythic material which may influence the course of history.
All of religion is based on magic. Nature exists, transpires, changes, proceeds - nature is alive, while gods are entirely imaginary projections of human characters into the supernatural.
You make sense very good points. In particular, I like the way in which you bring in neuroscience. That is because it may be the secular replacement of 'God', especially as an explanation for consciousness. The images of CT scans and in textbooks present a visual and causal explanatory logic which may be seen as fact and 'reality' itself. Also, science often claims objectivity as 'the truth', ignoring the way in which science, including physics only gives models. Science involves the mythic imagination.
It is true that religion does involve belief in the supernatural in most instances, but not always. One interesting area is that of a miracles, which was challenged by David Hume. However, I do see there being more than just superstition in miracles. There are the stories of the healing at Lourdes. There is also the recent story of the canonisation of St Luigi. He died as a teenager, who had created a website on miracles, and miracles have been attributed to him. It may be my Catholic side coming out but I do think that there may be more to miracles than many would admit. It is about an invisible dimension beyond the material one.
I find Harris to be very interesting because there is a lot I think he gets right and a lot I think he gets woefully wrong. Of course, "goodness" relates to desires, and so to "well-being," "happiness," or "flourishing." He's right to dismiss Hume's guillotine as more or less begging the question.
But he has to ground all of morality in neuroscience because he has a pretty naive/myopic conception of metaphysics. So, for him, because we need neurons to experience good things and well-being, "goodness" is a principle of neuroscience. To my mind this is a bit like hoping to explain flight by an appeal to an in-depth analysis of the cells in the wings of animals. Sure, they need those cells to fly, but flight is not best explained in this way. Plus, the entire enviornment is equally relevant to both flight and perception, nothing generates lift or consciousness in a vacuum.
I suspect that part of the problem is that the "mythos" of scientism has long been packaged with notions of reductionism and smallism. At least for me, my education tended to always lump them more or less together. And I think this baggage follows us around long after we have decided to dismiss it, and it can often act as a barrier to understanding ideas that fall outside the confines of our model.
I recall seeing a Quora post of someone who was confused about Plato's metaphysics of eidos because "red is just light of a certain wavelength which is just photons." We might certainly find problems with Plato, but I think the move to immediately start thinking of things in this sort of way (i.e. "what are the physical parts involved.") can often be unhelpful.
Daniel Dennett is also one who speaks the language of neuroscience in a very concrete way. I like the way in which some Buddhists incorporate neuroscience, but in a less reductionist way.
I am inclined to the view that all explanation is mythic because narrative is built into human understanding. We have narrative identity and it is from this starting point that we develop all pictures of the world. I am not sure that 'reality' can be explained in a way which is different from myth, whether it is in terms of models or metaphors. I work from the assumption that my thinking, and that of all others, is based on story, and this involves the way in which a person has been taught or chosen to understand.
I have considered before that the biggest difference between a philosophy and a religion is the degree to which you believe in the supernatural. Ultimately, they are both semi-formalized structural guides for living, imo. From my understanding, taosim can be either a religion or a philosophy, depending on how one interprets it.
Which are the exception?
Quoting Jack Cummins
Miracle means something not brought about by natural means: magic. Quoting Jack Cummins
Okay. Catholic sides can be very persuasive. Certainly, there are events we don't anticipate and can't explain. But as science advances, the window on miracles is closing.
That is a case at best of two minds sharing the one thought. I have other read your man at all
A topic-adjacent interview you might find interesting:
Re: the relevance / significance today of (German) Idealism?
https://philosophynow.org/issues/165/Robert_Stern
The idealism of Hegel and some others does make an important contribution. From what I have read it seems that Hegel sees history as a realisation of potential. In this way, all the events in life can be seen as the enfoldment of mythic possibilities.
Religion is bound up with worship, which in its worst form may involve distance from the dramas of life. In it's best form, it could be awareness of the 'transcendent', as the underlying force of nature, which is often called 'God'.
fIn thinking about the anthromorphic representations in the form of deity, it probably occurred because it is easier to imagine by thinking of as a 'person's to relate to. The problem may be where this became too fixed, with so much projected onto 'God', resulting in diminished consciousness of human nature and its flaws. The concept of the 'devil' or Satan allowed for evil to be projected outside or, if realised inside oneself as a source for guilt. The mythic aspect of good and evil within religion may have become too separate from the process of self-realisation.
What do you mean by this? (re: archetypal psychology à la James Hillman ... C.G. Jung ... Joseph Campbell ... :sparkle: )
Ex post facto teleological historicism (i.e. eschatological rationalization) aka the old Crusaders' "Deus vult!" :pray: :eyes:
What I really meant was that our lives are full of mythic dramas. Joseph Campbell does speak about this. It is in our personal lives and in a historical sense. But, it is also about framing. With the example of the Crusades, they were living out mythic drama, but they saw it as more than that because they were so immersed in. If a person is able to see the mythical dimensions of the stories, on personal and group level, it will be a starting point for reflective analysis.
I am not convinced that it is possible to outgrow mythos and stories in favour of logos. They are both important and complementary The reason why we need philosophy is to disentangle the two, because they can get muddled. In religion, mythos was treated as if were logos. Science, especially evidence, is important to think about this critically. However, mythos is about symbolic aspects of life which are central to meaning, psychologically and in appreciation. Logos alone would make the arts outdated.
I didn't say anything about "logos alone".
Yes, analytically. We also ought to strive to live according to logos over above mythos in order to flourish (according to e.g. Laozi ... Heraclitus, Epicurus, Epictetus ... Spinoza ... Peirce-Dewey, Zapffe, Camus, C. Rosset ...)
Yes, it's true that you did not say 'logos' alone and its balance with 'mythos' is intricate. The writers you speak of suggest that it is best to 'live according to logos'. They had a fair point but it is possible that living according to logos has gone to the other extreme since the time in which they were writing.
I am connecting it with the ideas of McGilchrist on the balance between emotion and reason, which he sees in the development of philosophy. The West has gone so far with reason. I am currently reading Levi Strauss on myth and symbolism and will see if this has any relevance.
I have read the introduction to this in 'Structural Anthropology' and he is arguing about the comparison between anthropology and history. Here, the idea of comparative thinking about culture is compared with history. This leads to the question of 'progress' in historical ideas, including whether further 'truth' is always achieved historically. I am not suggesting that evidence based science is not important but about some aspects of ancient wisdom revealed in the symbolic.
Not sure about that. Is this not a cliche? I would argue the West is largely irrational and emotion driven, like most humanity.
Remember that reason is the foundational support for classical theism (natural theology). Even today if you were to read David Bentley Hart or other serious philosophers and theological thinkers, they would maintain that reason leads you inevitably to god. St Anselm for instance thought that faith was merely a starting point - the deeper understanding of theism was encountered through reason. I think you'll find that many forms of idealism today (Bernardo Kastrup, for instance), appeal strongly to deductive and inductive reasoning.
The issue of how far the West has gone with reason is complicated because it is so variable. In some ways, people have development of reason which is only superficial, almost as pseudo-reason. The ability to reason about the emotions is also important as reason doesn't have to lead back to religion. Psychology may have stepped in where religion left off, especially in the idea of emotional intelligence, or Eric Berne's idea of 'Games People Play'. Social psychology involves the dramas of the social world.
The understanding of myth which is often adopted in colloquial disciplines is of myth as being about false assumptions. This is bound up with myth being seen as being about the supernatural. That is ignoring the way in which myth operates in every aspect of social and political lives . Thinkers about this may be neglected, not simply as a development of reason but as a split between reason and emotion. Even thinking about religion may involve this split, which may be why some people embrace it and others reject it entirely.