Logos, Mythos & Modern Religiosity

[Storm]

Then what is it?

Sorry for my curt response last night. I was short on time as well as annoyed that you seemed to be ignoring my previous attempts to explain.

I think it was outhouse who said that "mythos is just mythology." That's the modern, English meaning, not the ancient Greek I've been trying to explain. Mythos (note the lack of italics) is English for mythoi, not mythos. Modern mythoi flourish, as Songbird wisely pointed out... but mythos is in disfavor, and people no longer apply it to religion.

 

[cablescavenger]

No, it really isn't.

I find it useful when discussing this distinction to consider the Greek words from which our English words “logical” and “mythical” have been derived, logos and mythos. Both Greek words can be translated as something like “story” or “account”; mythical thinking and logical thinking both provide an account of the world, but they do so in very different ways.

(source)

At the bottom is a bunch of recommended reading too.

Either way. It is still old hat. Who needs it, I would rather know the truth, and have my children taught the truth. It can fade out for all I care. It serves no purpose and doesn't need to come back.

 

[Storm]

(source)

At the bottom is a bunch of recommended reading too.

If that was meant to be an argument, you should really read the whole thing.

 

[cablescavenger]

If that was meant to be an argument, you should really read the whole thing.

It is not meant to be an argument at all, and I did read the whole thing.
It clearly says one is for myth, the other logic.

My argument is myth is worthless, and before you say. Yes I did read it, and still came away with that.

It is called atheism and embracing truth.

 

[Storm]

It is not meant to be an argument at all,

OK.

It clearly says one is for myth, the other logic.

A trite and simplistic understanding.

My argument is myth is worthless,

Then you really don't understand it. Is all art worthless?

It is called atheism and embracing truth.

Atheism is ENTIRELY irrelevant here. Atheists have and need their mythos as much as anyone else, but the topic of the thread is how religion suffers without it. As for truth, what facts make the Ode To Joy so meaningful?

 

[cablescavenger]

Then you really don't understand it. Is all art worthless?

You obviously took away with you what you wanted and not what I said.

I said applying myth is worthless as it is unnecessary now, we have the capability and desire to find the truth, and yes, as far as I am concerned myth used in order to explain things can go in the bin.

The only myth we require is arts and entertainment, not using it for an explanatory tool.

Atheism is ENTIRELY irrelevant here.

Another where you misunderstand me.

To you it may not be relevant, but in the art of conversation it is because it was important to the point I was making. I was informing you why myth is irrelevant to me.

Atheists have and need their mythos as much as anyone else, but the topic of the thread is how religion suffers without it. As for truth, what facts make the Ode To Joy so meaningful?

OK. In that case your OP has not been clear, because at the end of the OP you say we have lost Mythos and an important birthright, and my response is we do not need it.

The Ode to Joy means nothing to me, so your last point is lost.

 

[Songbird]

I said applying myth is worthless as it is unnecessary now, we have the capability and desire to find the truth, and yes, as far as I am concerned myth used in order to explain things can go in the bin.

The only myth we require is arts and entertainment, not using it for an explanatory tool.

Mythos isn't just an explanatory tool - it's not even its primary usage in the sense of answering philosophical questions. It's more a way of expression where words fail. To me, music, art, and religion are almost inseparable in that regard. They'e just ways of creating, ways to relate to the world, and means of connecting to other people.

Mythos is a story. Every family has its own mythology - its collection of stories that identify the members as part of a group. Companies create their mythologies via corporate culture. Cities, countries, religions; mythos is found everywhere.

 

[blackout]

Mythos isn't just an explanatory tool - it's not even its primary usage in the sense of answering philosophical questions. It's more a way of expression where words fail. To me, music, art, and religion are almost inseparable in that regard. They'e just ways of creating, ways to relate to the world, and means of connecting to other people.

Mythos is a story. Every family has its own mythology - its collection of stories that identify the members as part of a group. Companies create their mythologies via corporate culture. Cities, countries, religions; mythos is found everywhere.

I'm with you darlin'.

I often spell mythology, 'My'thology.
I see that every life is it's own my'thology, lived out.

A piece of art on a hidden wall,
music played in an empty room,
epic stories in a closed book,

they are as nothing.

But when they are opened, seen, and heard
through the Psyches of human beings
they come to life
in light of the life
or the my'thology
of each individual observer.

 

[Storm]

You obviously took away with you what you wanted and not what I said.

I'm sorry, but no... I didn't.

I said applying myth is worthless as it is unnecessary now, we have the capability and desire to find the truth, and yes, as far as I am concerned myth used in order to explain things can go in the bin.

Forcing myth into logos MAKES it worthless. While you're quite right that it's 'unnecessary now,' the magnitude of understatement belies that you still don't understand my argument. Mythology was never really an explanation of external reality, but a map to the labyrinth of the subconscious. While that sometimes paralleled external events, and lent sanctity to the natural order (the abduction of Persephone comes to mind), science was the realm of logos before it was really science.

The thing is, each mode of thought enriches the other. The awe and inspiration of the scientist is a function of mythos, which seeks - and finds! - meaning, as opposed to bald fact. Where would physics be had Einstein shunned "the mystic feeling" (his own words) and ignored his intuition?

The only myth we require is arts and entertainment, not using it for an explanatory tool.

You're still conflating mythology/ mythoi with mythos. The former is one of the purest expressions of the latter, but neither its purpose nor function.

To you it may not be relevant, but in the art of conversation it is because it was important to the point I was making. I was informing you why myth is irrelevant to me.

But it's NOT - you've said so yourself, or at least implied it. "The only myth we require is arts..." Even if you insist on erroneously clinging to 'mythos is no more than mythology,' YOU just said mythology is important!

OK. In that case your OP has not been clear, because at the end of the OP you say we have lost Mythos and an important birthright, and my response is we do not need it.

I've begun to suspect that, myself... I try not to present walls of text in my OPs. But because so few people understand the context of my argument, I spent most of the post attempting to explain them. I think now that that was a mistake.

The Ode to Joy means nothing to me, so your last point is lost.

:thud: You really are a filthy little heathen, aren't you?! Atheism is one thing, but to deny BEETHOVEN? Simply unforgivable!

In all seriousness, if the Ode doesn't do it for you, substitute your favorite piece of instrumental music. I said earlier that mythology is ONE of the purest expressions of mythos... but it's a distant second to music.

 

[Photonic]

I'm sorry, but no... I didn't.


Forcing myth into logos MAKES it worthless. While you're quite right that it's 'unnecessary now,' the magnitude of understatement belies that you still don't understand my argument. Mythology was never really an explanation of external reality, but a map to the labyrinth of the subconscious. While that sometimes paralleled external events, and lent sanctity to the natural order (the abduction of Persephone comes to mind), science was the realm of logos before it was really science.

The thing is, each mode of thought enriches the other. The awe and inspiration of the scientist is a function of mythos, which seeks - and finds! - meaning, as opposed to bald fact. Where would physics be had Einstein shunned "the mystic feeling" (his own words) and ignored his intuition?


You're still conflating mythology/ mythoi with mythos. The former is one of the purest expressions of the latter, but neither its purpose nor function.


But it's NOT - you've said so yourself, or at least implied it. "The only myth we require is arts..." Even if you insist on erroneously clinging to 'mythos is no more than mythology,' YOU just said mythology is important!


I've begun to suspect that, myself... I try not to present walls of text in my OPs. But because so few people understand the context of my argument, I spent most of the post attempting to explain them. I think now that that was a mistake.


:thud: You really are a filthy little heathen, aren't you?! Atheism is one thing, but to deny BEETHOVEN? Simply unforgivable!

In all seriousness, if the Ode doesn't do it for you, substitute your favorite piece of instrumental music. I said earlier that mythology is ONE of the purest expressions of mythos... but it's a distant second to music.

To be fair, Ode to Joy was based on a poem. You must go to the original poem to decide if it is mythos.

 

[Storm]

To be fair, Ode to Joy was based on a poem. You must go to the original poem to decide if it is mythos.

1) Not at all: I was referring to the music, not the words.
2) All poetry is mythos. All ART is mythos.

 

[Penumbra]

But in the past, myth was not self-indulgent fantasy; rather, like logos, it helped people to live creatively in our confusing world, though in a different way....

Reminds me of Albert Camus' essay the Myth of Sisyphus, where he discusses how humans naturally expect and desire meaning, and the universe itself is devoid of such things or is unintelligible and can not satiate those expectations and desires. He argues that neither is absurd in and of itself, but the interaction between these two conflicting things is what creates the difficult or "absurd" situation. And then he basically goes on to use stories and myths to provide examples and acknowledges the value of art.

Thoughts?

I think mythos is fine as long as it's not confused with logos. If one person's mythos becomes another person's logos, there's a problem.

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.

I agree with Kilgore Trout's assertions that this hasn't yet been evidenced thoroughly in this thread. I don't agree at face value that ancients were less prone to mistaking myth for fact than modern people. History is rife with people doing silly things for thousands of years, so I don't see how they would be any different than people are now.

 

[LoTrobador]

Armstrong hits the nail on the head: mythos has been forgotten. Logos dominates, and we've lost a priceless birthright. Worse, we've kept its handmaidens, its vehicles. We still tell the stories... but we no longer know what they mean.

Thoughts?

I only know, end even that to a limited extent, Western Christianity, so I can't speak of other religions or of forms of Christianity that are informed by a different cultural experience.

That being said, if you think about religion as an expression of both Mythos and Logos, then perhaps modern Western Christianity could be said to suffer from a twofold problem. It is seen as not in agreement with the prevalent logical narratives, i.e. its doctrines - the expressions of its Logos - do not represent the Reality. And on the other hand, its mythical narratives, i.e. its poetry, ritual, language, values - the expressions of its Mythos - do not express the experience and the existential reflection of modern Western people. Their experience, the Mythos, and their worldview, the Logos, are different from the experience and the worldview of Western Christianity. On the other hand, Christian apologists do sometimes argue that Christianity is a very accurate representation of the existential experience of humans, and that it offers answers to questions arising from this experience.

And it's hard to account for all the different factors that may or may not influence the growth or otherwise of Christian denominations, so I wouldn't presume to predict such changes, but I think its not entirely unwarranted to say that those forms of Christianity which do account for the modern experience and those which provide a way to participate in their own experience might be a strong presence within the 21st century Christianity.

 

[cablescavenger]

I'm sorry, but no... I didn't.


Forcing myth into logos MAKES it worthless. While you're quite right that it's 'unnecessary now,' the magnitude of understatement belies that you still don't understand my argument. Mythology was never really an explanation of external reality, but a map to the labyrinth of the subconscious. While that sometimes paralleled external events, and lent sanctity to the natural order (the abduction of Persephone comes to mind), science was the realm of logos before it was really science.

The thing is, each mode of thought enriches the other. The awe and inspiration of the scientist is a function of mythos, which seeks - and finds! - meaning, as opposed to bald fact. Where would physics be had Einstein shunned "the mystic feeling" (his own words) and ignored his intuition?


You're still conflating mythology/ mythoi with mythos. The former is one of the purest expressions of the latter, but neither its purpose nor function.


But it's NOT - you've said so yourself, or at least implied it. "The only myth we require is arts..." Even if you insist on erroneously clinging to 'mythos is no more than mythology,' YOU just said mythology is important!


I've begun to suspect that, myself... I try not to present walls of text in my OPs. But because so few people understand the context of my argument, I spent most of the post attempting to explain them. I think now that that was a mistake.


:thud: You really are a filthy little heathen, aren't you?! Atheism is one thing, but to deny BEETHOVEN? Simply unforgivable!

In all seriousness, if the Ode doesn't do it for you, substitute your favorite piece of instrumental music. I said earlier that mythology is ONE of the purest expressions of mythos... but it's a distant second to music.

Storm, I am not sure why you think I have denied any form of entertainment, because I have made it clear that I do not, but I do feel myth is useless outside of entertainment.

Regarding the travelling through the labrynths of the subconscious, we also have a greater understanding of our own minds than we did. I do not know why people cling on to this rubbish in the hope it might somehow help unravel some ancient mystery. It is akin to giving up on the hubble telescope in favour of the magnifying glass.

The two words mythos and logos are just old words that try to explain a thought process, they are not enablers of thought, so with or without an explanation of mythos and logos Einstein would be just fine.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Storm, I am not sure why you think I have denied any form of entertainment, because I have made it clear that I do not, but I do feel myth is useless outside of entertainment.

Regarding the travelling through the labrynths of the subconscious, we also have a greater understanding of our own minds than we did. I do not know why people cling on to this rubbish in the hope it might somehow help unravel some ancient mystery. It is akin to giving up on the hubble telescope in favour of the magnifying glass.

This is probably the saddest worldview I've ever seen. You've basically just nixed the entire structure of the underlying archetypes present in art and myth. The reason that Star Wars is so entertaining is that it's something that works. It's the young prince versus the black knight.

Artists use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use them to cover the truth up.

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Armstrong hits the nail on the head: mythos has been forgotten. Logos dominates, and we've lost a priceless birthright. Worse, we've kept its handmaidens, its vehicles. We still tell the stories... but we no longer know what they mean.

Thoughts?

I tend to agree with this. I think more Carl Jung and more Joseph Campbell would do everyone some good.

 

[Storm]

Storm, I am not sure why you think I have denied any form of entertainment,

I was teasing about the Beethoven. Hence the smilies.

 

[cablescavenger]

I was teasing about the Beethoven. Hence the smilies.

Sorry I missed it.

 

[cablescavenger]

This is probably the saddest worldview I've ever seen. You've basically just nixed the entire structure of the underlying archetypes present in art and myth. The reason that Star Wars is so entertaining is that it's something that works. It's the young prince versus the black knight.

I am not against make believe, the arts or entertainment. I have said that several times, and said what I do think is unnecessary and no longer relevant or useful is explaining the unknown with myth.