The Concept of Myth and the Science of the Other (original) (raw)
2013
In search of a scientifically useful minimal definition of the term "myth", this article traces the development of the concept from the cultural environment of classical Greece, in which it was born, until its modern use in the framework of socio-anthropological studies. Of all the terms of the vocabulary of religious anthropology "myth'' is certainly the most used one. Unfortunately, its wide-spread use is directly proportional to its indeterminateness. Moreover, it regards not only the everyday lexis (what is exactly intended, when, for instance, people call an actor or a soccer player "mythic"?), but also academic communications: various authors can intend by this concept diametrically opposed things.
Myth and Science: Their Varying Relationships
Religion Compass, 2009
The relationship between myth and science is a subject as old as that of myth and science themselves. The position on the issue taken by modern theories of myth can be divided chronologically by the centuries. In the nineteenth century, myth and science were commonly taken to be incompatible. One could not consistently accept both. Because moderns were assumed to be scientific, the choice had already been made for them: they had to abandon myth. In the twentieth century, by contrast, myth and science were usually taken to be compatible, so that one could consistently accept both. Moderns were still assumed to be scientific, but myth was now re-characterized to accommodate science. Only recently, with the rise of postmodernism, has the deference to science assumed by both nineteenth-and twentieth-century theorists been challenged. This article concentrates on the varying positions on myth and science taken in both centuries by those for whom myth and science intersect rather than diverge. Whether, as the 'mission' of the twenty-first century, myth can be brought back to the world-the world explained by science-is finally considered with the case of Gaia.
Exploring the nature of myth and its role in science
Geological Society, London, Special Publications, 2007
The scientific study of myth is dominated by a paradigm that recognizes myth as having been viewed as truthful narrative history by past traditional cultures and yet is considered false or otherwise suspect by the modern scholars who study myth. Although virtually all scholars recognize that myth was of critical importance for traditional cultures, the attempt to elicit scientific reasons for this importance has led to many competing theories, few of which place an emphasis on the validity of myths as representing the product of actual observed historical natural events. This paradox may hinder our understanding of the origins of myth and prevent us from fully appreciating a critical aspect of why myth was so highly valued by past cultures. To set the stage for our examination of the possible natural history core of myth, we discuss briefly the history of the western scientific study of myth, with an emphasis on geological sciences. We then explore the cognitive structure of myth and provide working principles about how the historical information contained in these myths can be transmitted faithfully through successive generations and can be elicited by scientific study. Although recognizing the extreme complexity of myth as a cultural product, our data indicate that a science-based natural history approach can lead to important insights regarding the nature of myth.
Journal for The Theory of Social Behaviour, 2020
Myth has a convoluted etymological history in terms of its origins, meanings, and functions. Throughout this essay I explore the signification, structure, and essence of myth in terms of its source, force, form, object, and teleology derived from archaic ontology. Here I offer a theoretic typology of myth by engaging the work of contemporary scholar, Robert A. Segal, who places fine distinctions on criteria of explanation versus interpretation when theorizing about myth historically derived from methodologies employed in analytic philosophy and the philosophy of science. Through my analysis of an explanandum and an explanans, I argue that both interpretation and explanation are acts of explication that signify the ontological significance, truth, and psychic reality of myth in both individuals and social collectives. I conclude that, in essence, myth is a form of inner sense.
The Scientific Study of Myth: Romantic Account of Symbolism and Mythology
The present study seeks to investigate the arrangement of the science of mythology at the turn of the 19th century, and an understanding of the scientific work, which enabled to consider mythology a discipline. The research in a case of interpretation of the notions of myth and symbol explores prerequisites and framework for the study. The findings of the research illustrate the role of the disciplinary argument and publishing strategies in the debates surrounding mythology’s conceptual bases. The research demonstrates that at the turn of the 19th century mythology was established both as a subject of research and as a discipline in its own right on the crossroads of disciplinary arguments, knowledge differentiation and knowledge distribution strategies.
Anthropological perspectives on Myth
Anuário Antropologico, 2002
In this paper, I explore anthropological interpretations of myths. Myths have fascinated scholars in various disciplines - as well as ordinary people. They have recorded and presented history, expounded philosophical ideas and moral values (Plato, Sophocles, Aeschylus), as well as provided patterns for interpreting language, (Müller), psychology (Freud, Rank, Jung) and structure (Lévi-Strauss, Greimas). One of the more puzzling moments in all these studies was the apparent incommensurability between “myth” and “reality.
Internationale Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Psychsomatik, 2019
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the structure of human thinking by means of the concept “myth”. The starting points are several prominent theories on this subject which are in agreement that myth is neither a simple opposition to logos nor that it allows for separating strictly purely irrational and purely rational thinking. However, these theories demonstrate very different ways of understanding myth, its relation to logos and its functions in the structure of human consciousness. Therefore my paper aims at developing a systematic conceptual frame for the “myth” and the so called mythical thinking by means of convergence of several methods and forms of inquiry about the complex relations between theories of meaning and theories of myth. Its innovative character consists in the systematic examining structures of mythical thinking with help of conceptual tools coming from the nowadays largely forgotten hermeneutic tradition of Georg Misch und Josef König, which until now has not been applied to this subject matter. I will examine to what extent this theory can be helpful for the understanding of myth and explanation of its role in thinking and life of modern humanity.
THE TRUTH AND THE FALSEHOOD OF MYTHS
Departing from the proposition that the formation of myths is a typical feature of being human, their truth or falsehood is explored. Referring primarily to classical mythology, a myth is defined as a story which attempts to make sense of our inner and external environments. Supernatural agents are the main actors. Various theories about the functions of myths are discussed. Their basic embeddedness within the premodern three-storeyed vision of the cosmos, is set out. The value of myth analysis is illustrated by referring to New Testament Studies, Political Studies, Film Studies, Sociology, Psychology, Communication Studies, and the Science of Management. The article concludes by demonstrating the dangers of reading myths literally, as in fundamentalist Christianity, undermining free and open critical inquiry and leading to mind-control, manipulation, and persecution.