Logos, Mythos & Modern Religiosity

[Storm]

How does atheism fall in this category? Wouldn't a person be just as inclined to not believe in god if they know to take myths symbolically?

Atheism is and has always been a reaction to a given theism (in the general meaning for once), hence the name. Modern atheism, the utter rejection of any and all concept of divinity, is imo a reaction to the gibberish that results when religion is forced into logos.

 

[Storm]

By way of demonstration, I present Genesis as seen through the two modes:

For logos, I could turn to Dawkins, or YEC... but that's giving it more credit than it deserves. And so, my favorite such analysis, by the brilliant Ricky Gervais:
[youtube]JjI6D84ExvU[/youtube]

When you've composed yourself, I'll ask you to put in some actual effort for the mythos.

Conrad Hyers: Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance

For those who appropriately wonder as to his credentials:

Conrad Hyers (born 1933) is an American writer, lecturer, and ordained Presbyterian minister.[1] He received his Ph.D. in Theology and Philosophy of Religion from Princeton Theological Seminary.[1] Before retiring he was a Professor of Religion at Gustavus Adolphus College in St. Peter, Minnesota.[1]
​

From the Wiki.

 

[cablescavenger]

I disagree that we've forgotten mythos. To quote a friend, the needs that created the mythologies we still use no longer exist. Instead we have different needs that we try to meet with ancient modes of myth. Clumsily put, what we need to do is adjust our mythos.

I would agree. Today it is called story, or analogy or metaphor etc

If the story is told as a truth in order to deceive the recipient it will be called a lie, Propaganda, spin, BS, or some other.

There are many ways to skin a cat now. If anything our mythos has become more sophisticated.

 

[Storm]

I would agree. Today it is called story, or analogy or metaphor etc

If the story is told as a truth in order to deceive the recipient it will be called a lie, Propaganda, spin, BS, or some other.

There are many ways to skin a cat now. If anything our mythos has become more sophisticated.

As you continue to catch up, you'll find I agree as well.

So allow me to refine my statement ftr: we have forgotten that religion is an expression of mythos.

I do disagree that it's become more sophisticated, however. Take movies: while some are mythic indeed, their popularity is dwarfed by thoughtless explosions and FX-travaganzas.

The most profound AND successful movies I can think of off the top of my head:
LotR: Tolkein was brilliant, but how many folk appreciated more than pretty elves and spectacular battles?
The Star Wars franchise, which while it follows mythic archetypes, is ultimately quite shallow
Avatar, which was more political than philosophical and still not incredibly thought-provoking.
Last and least, dishonorable mention to the Matrix series. UGH.

 

[bobhikes]

So we are saying logos is logic and mythos religion.

My take is a little different mythos for me is emotional responce.

Logic can not resolve the death of a love one, why you lost you leg, what you should be in life, or why another person hurts you, etc.

Logic can explain all this after the fact but can't stop it or help you resolve it. Mythos can help resolve emotional problems.

Mythos is disappearing in this current world but eventually will make a big comeback because emotions are real things we have to deal with day to day and need help doing it and emotions are not responsive to logic.

 

[idav]

The most profound AND successful movies I can think of off the top of my head:
LotR: Tolkein was brilliant, but how many folk appreciated more than pretty elves and spectacular battles?

True

The Star Wars franchise, which while it follows mythic archetypes, is ultimately quite shallow

Shallow how?

Avatar, which was more political than philosophical and still not incredibly thought-provoking.

It is thought provoking for people still trying to catch up.

Last and least, dishonorable mention to the Matrix series. UGH.

OMG How can you hate the Matrix?

edit: For tolkein it is drama that gets to people and teaches them. Same for most myths modern or old.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Literalism is quite modern, yes. As evidence, I don't think I need go further than to point at the ludicrous results of reading Genesis as a history. I'd be happy to provide an article, however.

Yes you do need to go further. Please provide some type of factual basis that some ancient people didn't view some of the stories as factual.

 

[Storm]

So we are saying logos is logic and mythos religion.

Not quite. Logic and religion are disciplines of thought. Logos and mythos are the modes of thought on said disciplines stem from. They're not the ideas themselves but the very capacity for comprehension.

That said, I disagree with the assumption that they should be kept entirely separate (not putting words in anyone's mouth, just commenting on a common opinion). I strongly believe that the human intellect is at its finest when the two modes are employed in balance.

Take religion. Not just mythology, but all religion's handmaidens: theology, ethics, cosmology. While the core ideas are best expressed through the myths, religion doesn't - or at least, damned well SHOULDN'T - stop with that. It's one thing to grasp the concepts laid out in Genesis, quite another to embrace them! Or reject. To do either responsibly requires the evaluation of worth - logos.

My take is a little different mythos for me is emotional responce.

Logic can not resolve the death of a love one, why you lost you leg, what you should be in life, or why another person hurts you, etc.

Logic can explain all this after the fact but can't stop it or help you resolve it. Mythos can help resolve emotional problems.

That's one of its primary functions, but I disagree that it's a working definition.

Mythos is disappearing in this current world but eventually will make a big comeback because emotions are real things we have to deal with day to day and need help doing it and emotions are not responsive to logic.

I do hope you're right.

 

[Storm]

Yes you do need to go further. Please provide some type of factual basis that some ancient people didn't view some of the stories as factual.

See the comparison analyses upthread. Which makes sense? Unless the ancients were stupid, a fool's bias, the stories made sense to them.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

See the comparison analyses upthread. Which makes sense? Unless the ancients were stupid, a fool's bias, the stories made sense to them.

Sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say. You said literalism is a modern invention. Please provide a factual basis that this is the case.

 

[Storm]

Sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say. You said literalism is a modern invention. Please provide a factual basis that this is the case.

Sorry, insufficient caffeination combined with multitasking...

What precisely are you asking me for? What 'facts' would convince you? There's a consensus among historians (to the best of my knowledge), but nowhere did any ancient bother to preface Myth X with "and btw, this is a myth.' It would have been as utterly, ridiculously unnecessary to them as it is to us when writing fiction. If that's what you're after, it's an unreasonable expectation.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Sorry, insufficient caffeination combined with multitasking...

What precisely are you asking me for? What 'facts' would convince you? There's a consensus among historians (to the best of my knowledge), but nowhere did any ancient bother to preface Myth X with "and btw, this is a myth.' It would have been as utterly, ridiculously unnecessary to them as it is to us when writing fiction. If that's what you're after, it's an unreasonable expectation.

I'm asking for some sort of factual basis to think that some ancient people didn't view some stories as literal, just as some people today view some stories as literal. If you think there is a consensus among historians regarding this, then please provide reference(s) which support this claim. I'm just trying to figure out why you think the average ancient person would be any different than the average modern person. At this point, it doesn't seem to be a conclusion based on information, but rather an idea that simply appeals to you.

 

[blackout]

Yes you do need to go further. Please provide some type of factual basis that some ancient people didn't view some of the stories as factual.

I'm hardly an expert on the topic
but it is interesting to note that Gods and Godesses of earlier mythologies
often changed, even drastically over time.
They went from hero in the reign of one Pharoah
to villain in the next.
Gods/Godesses were sometimes later morphed together,
they were changed later, so as not to interfere with one another
trait wise.
Entire stories/myths were replaced with entirely new stories,
changing the entire character/s of those involved,
and putting forth an entire new mythos.

It's hard to imagine any kind of staunch literalism thriving
amidst so many changing versions of character and 'narrative'.

In ancient mythos, characters and story lines were open to change.
Much like our modern day fairy tales-
and completely unlike our modern day 'Bible'
in which' no word may be added or taken away'.

 

[blackout]

It is also interesting to note that Aristotle used the term Mythos
to describe variations on plot. (in the telling of a tragedy ...= story)

 

[cablescavenger]

So we are saying logos is logic and mythos religion.

My take is a little different mythos for me is emotional responce.

Logic can not resolve the death of a love one, why you lost you leg, what you should be in life, or why another person hurts you, etc.

Logic can explain all this after the fact but can't stop it or help you resolve it. Mythos can help resolve emotional problems.

Mythos is disappearing in this current world but eventually will make a big comeback because emotions are real things we have to deal with day to day and need help doing it and emotions are not responsive to logic.

Yup. I think you are right, Storm did say that it invovled emotional, I just missed that in mine, because I was looking at the storytelling side, and forgot the emotional bit. Saying that, I am not sure I can think of any story or moral that deals with struggling with emotions; from ancient Rome, or the bible, so maybe that aspect was not overly developed anyway.

Can you think of anytale that covers say the death of a loved one and how to deal with the pain? or some other similar tale? I always think the bible is matter of fact where murder and death is concerned.

 

[cablescavenger]

Mythos is just mythology. Mythology was explaining the unknown with a fancful tale.

We are big enough and clever enough now to acknowledge what we do not know, and to try and understand it.

The only Myths we need now lie in arts and entertainment. Some people might think it is a shame to cover the great unkowns in myth, but I think it serves no useful purpose today.

I would rather know the great unknowns, because people with a mind to, will, where possible, make them known, and knowing that something is not yet known is a great driver in itself.

 

[idav]

The only Myths we need now lie in arts and entertainment. Some people might think it is a shame to cover the great unkowns in myth, but I think it serves no useful purpose today.

Thats funny considering the Arts and Entertainment do so much recycling of stories including mythology.

 

[Storm]

Mythos is just mythology.

No, it really isn't.

 

[Dan4reason]

No, it really isn't.

Then what is it?

 

[Storm]

Then what is it?

Read the rest of my posts.