Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Ecurb]

Skepticism about myths is difficult to maintain, these days. Archaeologists have discovered the walls of Troy and the labyrinth of King Minos, although the quest for Noah's ark continues.

Unsurprisingly, archaeological remnants for fairy tales remain undiscovered. I wish we could find the sepulchre of Cinderella, her tiny feet encased in glass slippers. Or perhaps we could discover the castle of Carabas, and under the chapel find the remains of a large cat with with a highly developed cranium and a pair of thigh-high leather boots.

It won't happen, because men make up a fairy tale because it is not true, and cling to a myth or legend because it is (or was) true. Fairy tales are precise: anyone who has tried to change one detail of such a story to a three-year-old child will be impatiently corrected. Legends and myths, on the other hand, spin into dozens of variations. I remember one story in which Robin Hood and his men lived in a cave. Huh? What happened to Sherwood Forest?

I once read about the discovery of a casket containing the bones of the True Buddha in Peshawar. The discovery was pooh-poohed, of course, as superstition of the credulous believers. But wouldn't believers be anything but credulous? Surely it matters to them (and to nobody else) if these bones are the actual bones of the Buddha.

To the scientist, it matters not whether the bones are those of the Buddha, or of someone else. The devotee, on the other hand, will care passionately about the question, and be as careful as possible in examining the evidence.

I'll grant that there may sometimes be motives for fraud. The Camino de Santiago de Compostela served as a pilgrimage because the bones of St. James the apostle (“Santiago” in Spanish) were buried there. As the Muslims pushed the forces of Christendom into the Northwest corner of Spain in the eighth century, they were led by an icon: the arm of Mohammad, which they carried with them and which made them invincible. The Christian general was fortunately able to combat this be discovering the bones of St. James, whose mystical powers, carried into battle, nullified those of the disembodied arm.

What's my point? I hear atheists dismiss myths as “fairy tales”. But this shows a lack of understanding of literary and historical forms. Pre-literate cultures would often have one word which we would translate as “myth” or “history”, and another we would translate as “fable” or “fairy tale”. Let's not confuse the two forms.

[LuckyR]

Atheists can come off as overly forceful in style as all oppressed minorities can at times.

Though the perceived insult felt by the dominant theist culture, while defendable, seems overblown.

[JackDaydream]

Skepticism about myths is difficult to maintain, these days. Archaeologists have discovered the walls of Troy and the labyrinth of King Minos, although the quest for Noah's ark continues.

Unsurprisingly, archaeological remnants for fairy tales remain undiscovered. I wish we could find the sepulchre of Cinderella, her tiny feet encased in glass slippers. Or perhaps we could discover the castle of Carabas, and under the chapel find the remains of a large cat with with a highly developed cranium and a pair of thigh-high leather boots.

It won't happen, because men make up a fairy tale because it is not true, and cling to a myth or legend because it is (or was) true. Fairy tales are precise: anyone who has tried to change one detail of such a story to a three-year-old child will be impatiently corrected. Legends and myths, on the other hand, spin into dozens of variations. I remember one story in which Robin Hood and his men lived in a cave. Huh? What happened to Sherwood Forest?

I once read about the discovery of a casket containing the bones of the True Buddha in Peshawar. The discovery was pooh-poohed, of course, as superstition of the credulous believers. But wouldn't believers be anything but credulous? Surely it matters to them (and to nobody else) if these bones are the actual bones of the Buddha.

To the scientist, it matters not whether the bones are those of the Buddha, or of someone else. The devotee, on the other hand, will care passionately about the question, and be as careful as possible in examining the evidence.

I'll grant that there may sometimes be motives for fraud. The Camino de Santiago de Compostela served as a pilgrimage because the bones of St. James the apostle (“Santiago” in Spanish) were buried there. As the Muslims pushed the forces of Christendom into the Northwest corner of Spain in the eighth century, they were led by an icon: the arm of Mohammad, which they carried with them and which made them invincible. The Christian general was fortunately able to combat this be discovering the bones of St. James, whose mystical powers, carried into battle, nullified those of the disembodied arm.

What's my point? I hear atheists dismiss myths as “fairy tales”. But this shows a lack of understanding of literary and historical forms. Pre-literate cultures would often have one word which we would translate as “myth” or “history”, and another we would translate as “fable” or “fairy tale”. Let's not confuse the two forms.

I regard myths as an important source of knowledge in the form of symbolic aspects of truth. The whole tradition which makes use of this level includes Jung and Joseph Campbell. It is also important within anthropology as well as literature and arts based perspectives.

Some people see 'myths' as simply being made up but it may be that they are derived from the depths of symbolism and archetypal forms of imagination. The fantasy aspects may contain stories which convey a different perspective to science. Many people have, for example, tried to see the story in 'The Book of Genesis' literally and this poses problems when compared with the accounts of evolution. To read the Bible in such a way may be take Adam and Eve as literal human beings in a 7 day creation. Other aspects of the Bible give rise to the question of how much is literal and symbolic.

Perhaps, philosophy can draw upon religious symbolism and that in the arts for an understanding of imagination as a different form of thought from science but one which speaks to the human mind on a different level. Truth does not have to be seen as exclusive to science and the arts come from a different angle. This is shown by so many thinkers from Shakespeare, William Blake, Tolkien as well as the artists and musicians. Julian Jaynes in his description of the origins of consciousness shows how human language evolved in the form of images in art, song and poetry. Human consciousness has gone in the direction of rationality but it may be that the symbolic aspects represent aspects of feeling, intuition and imagination which are important as a complementary aspect for balance of mental states. This may be about the left and right side of the brain.

[Ecurb]

Atheists can come off as overly forceful in style as all oppressed minorities can at times.

Though the perceived insult felt by the dominant theist culture, while defendable, seems overblown.

In my circles (and in those of this Philosophy Forum) atheists are hardly an "oppressed minority". On the contrary. My point, though (if there was one, I mainly wanted to ramble about some things I found interesting, and hoped others would as well, like the bones of the Buddha and the arm of Mohammed) was that calling myths "fair tales" is intended to insult the religious, but, instead, simply demonstrates ignorance about literary forms. As an atheist, I wish my fellow travelers would refrain from making fools of themselves. Myths are myths. Fairy tales are fairy tales. That's why we have different terms for them. Also, since I'm a lover of both myths and fairy tales, I dislike hearing them mischaricturized.

By the way, I think the Bible represents a variety of literary forms: Myth (the creation story); History (Kings); Fable (Jonah and the Whale); Old fashioned biography (the Gospels); and poetry (Psalms).

[stevie]

Skepticism about myths is difficult to maintain, these days. Archaeologists have discovered the walls of Troy and the labyrinth of King Minos, although the quest for Noah's ark continues.

As it appears to me the Archaeologists' discoveries don't support the narratives called "myths" at all. So sceptisism about myths is well-grounded.

[LuckyR]

Atheists can come off as overly forceful in style as all oppressed minorities can at times.

Though the perceived insult felt by the dominant theist culture, while defendable, seems overblown.

In my circles (and in those of this Philosophy Forum) atheists are hardly an "oppressed minority". On the contrary. My point, though (if there was one, I mainly wanted to ramble about some things I found interesting, and hoped others would as well, like the bones of the Buddha and the arm of Mohammed) was that calling myths "fair tales" is intended to insult the religious, but, instead, simply demonstrates ignorance about literary forms. As an atheist, I wish my fellow travelers would refrain from making fools of themselves. Myths are myths. Fairy tales are fairy tales. That's why we have different terms for them. Also, since I'm a lover of both myths and fairy tales, I dislike hearing them mischaricturized.

By the way, I think the Bible represents a variety of literary forms: Myth (the creation story); History (Kings); Fable (Jonah and the Whale); Old fashioned biography (the Gospels); and poetry (Psalms).

Oh in the ivory towers that are philosophy forums, I completely agree with you, but in the Real World, I stand by my post. And by "forceful" I meant aggressive, such that myth and fairy tale are designed to be more perjorative than accurate (though they might be accurate).

[Pattern-chaser]

History includes and embraces myths, fairy tales and other stuff, all mixed together so that they become indistinguishable and inseparable. Even the most 'factual' history often contains myths and fairy tales, although we may not realise it. Humans tell stories. Sometimes the stories are true (i.e. have a basis in fact), and sometimes not. But the best way to get humans to remember and retain something is to present it to them as a story. And history is a story...

[The Beast]

Myth or History? After the battle of Actium and the death of Anthony and Cleopatra, Augustus set his eyes in the conquest of the Asturs and “Las Medulas” gold mines. It is possible that of the 200000 troops Augustus came with to Hispania some were Herod’s men with the traditions of Jewish Christianity. This is made plausible by Flavius Josephus history. Yet, it is probable that the first temple was dedicated to Rhea which is the Phrygian Cibeles and that the cult of Midas in Europe started here (Syrian/Roman legions). The oldest documents of the Cathedral of Santiago speak of a “Mestre Mateo” as the architect and the psalms or rituals are a copy of those of Notre Dame of the Franks of a later tradition. Moreover, the inscription of the tomb is “St. iacob” “Saint iacob” “Santiago” that might represent a later Christian colony after the invasion of the Saxons in the 400's hence the ‘French route’