Mythology Vs. History - Round #1

[jonathan180iq]

I've perused several threads lately which deal specifically with conflicting ideas about what constitutes a mythological narrative, as opposed to an historical one...

I'm rather convinced that contradictory opinions on this matter rest their blame solely on the shoulders of cognitive biases and very little else. I think consistent reason and logic are the best combatants of such biases, so I'm asking for that here.

With no offense intended to our newly recognized Hellenistic practitioners (At least in Greece), I've chosen a widely accepted mythological tale and I'd like anyone who's willing to attempt to "prove" to me that this tale is not, in fact, historical in it's telling of events.

Homer's Odyssey - http://www.boyle.kyschools.us/UserFiles/88/The Odyssey.pdf
The journey of Odysseus includes many factual places, describes substantiated social practices and beliefs, and it accurately describes physical cultural characteristics that seem chronologically appropriate, like dress, drink, building type, etc.

So, for those who deem such epic tales to be nothing more than fantasy and myth - how do you defend that position? How do you differentiate the (supposed) myth of the Odyssey from the history of the period?

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Seems as plausible as the bible stories, if not more, in many cases.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Seems as plausible as the bible stories, if not more, in many cases.

Answering this question poses more a challenge for those who would disagree with you.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Answering this question poses more a challenge for those who would disagree with you.

I'm confident they are up to the task, and I excitedly await their insightful and considered responses on the matter!

 

[George-ananda]

what constitutes a mythological narrative, as opposed to an historical one...

I think it is often more complicated and a mixture of both.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I think it is often more complicated and a mixture of both.

Certainly - but saying that means that there are individual facets of the narrative that you deem to be at least somewhat mythological, yes?

 

[pearl]

I'm rather convinced that contradictory opinions on this matter rest their blame solely on the shoulders of cognitive biases and very little else. I think consistent reason and logic are the best combatants of such biases, so I'm asking for that here.

For those of us who have not studied these classics;
For Homer, truth was embedded in a story or a song.

https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/node/1744

https://www.cliffsnotes.com/literature/o/the-odyssey/summary-and-analysis/book-1

 

[Nous]

Homer's Odyssey - http://www.boyle.kyschools.us/UserFiles/88/The Odyssey.pdf
The journey of Odysseus includes many factual places, describes substantiated social practices and beliefs, and it accurately describes physical cultural characteristics that seem chronologically appropriate, like dress, drink, building type, etc.

So, for those who deem such epic tales to be nothing more than fantasy and myth - how do you defend that position? How do you differentiate the (supposed) myth of the Odyssey from the history of the period?

I shouldn't be answering your question here because I'm definitely not one who deems "such epic tales to be nothing more than fantasy and myth". But (or therefore) I can't help but ask what are you referring to as "the (supposed) myth of the Odyssey"? I mean, what is it about the story that we can't consider it like a modern novel?

 

[metis]

How do you differentiate the (supposed) myth of the Odyssey from the history of the period?

I tend to treat all such questionably-accurate narratives as myth, which obviously does not mean falsehood, and try to see which teachings might be usable.

 

[Augustus]

I mean, what is it about the story that we can't consider it like a modern novel?

Social circumstance?

History hasn't always been distinct from mythology.

 

[Callisto]

So, for those who deem such epic tales to be nothing more than fantasy and myth - how do you defend that position? How do you differentiate the (supposed) myth of the Odyssey from the history of the period?

 

[Nakosis]

So, for those who deem such epic tales to be nothing more than fantasy and myth - how do you defend that position? How do you differentiate the (supposed) myth of the Odyssey from the history of the period?

I pretty much assume it is all a myth. Even if you have historical evidence, folks create a narrative about it to explain their pet theories. I think at best part of a historical narrative gets dis-proven by evidence. It's never gets completely proven.

Removing the supernatural aspects of a historical narrative is no guarantee it is any more accurate. Just more plausible. I'm not sure how well I could prove the historical accuracy of something which happen to me last week let alone 2000 years ago. Still I tend to believe one historical narrative over another I suppose just because it seems more plausible.

If you believe in a God what seems plausible to you is going to be different than what seems plausible to an atheist.


“History is a myth that men agree to believe” -Napolean

 

[George-ananda]

Certainly - but saying that means that there are individual facets of the narrative that you deem to be at least somewhat mythological, yes?

Yeah, but often we don't have official detailed records to separate myth from history from spin. So various theories emerge and no one can speak with absolute certainty on exactly what did or did not happen.

 

[Nakosis]

I tend to treat all such questionably-accurate narratives as myth, which obviously does not mean falsehood, and try to see which teachings might be usable.

Nothing wrong with that. If you find some meaning for you in a story fictional or not and can make some use from it, it's all good.

I'm not personally against religion, just don't expect me to buy any of it as truth without question.

 

[Daisies4me]

I'm confident they are up to the task, and I excitedly await their insightful and considered responses on the matter!

(quote)

Colossians 2:8
8 Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

 

[Daisies4me]

I pretty much assume it is all a myth. Even if you have historical evidence, folks create a narrative about it to explain their pet theories. I think at best part of a historical narrative gets dis-proven by evidence. It's never gets completely proven.

Removing the supernatural aspects of a historical narrative is no guarantee it is any more accurate. Just more plausible. I'm not sure how well I could prove the historical accuracy of something which happen to me last week let alone 2000 years ago. Still I tend to believe one historical narrative over another I suppose just because it seems more plausible.

If you believe in a God what seems plausible to you is going to be different than what seems plausible to an atheist.


“History is a myth that men agree to believe” -Napolean

(quote)

speaking of myths---many religious doctrines are actually myths.
Have a look at the top 5:

One Myth Leads to Another

 

[sayak83]

(quote)

Colossians 2:8
8 Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;

Paraphrase :- if one can't answer revert to " its a Satanic conspiracy?"

 

[Daisies4me]

Paraphrase :- if one can't answer revert to " its a Satanic conspiracy?"

(quote)
Hi Sayak83,
Actually, more like 'look to the Bible for answers'. Who knows better than the Creator of all things?

If you think that going against what the Bible says to be 'a satanic conspiracy; so be it.

 

[sayak83]

(quote)
Hi Sayak83,
Actually, more like 'look to the Bible for answers'. Who knows better than the Creator of all things?

If you think that going against what the Bible says to be 'a satanic conspiracy; so be it.

So it claims.

 

[SomeRandom]

I've perused several threads lately which deal specifically with conflicting ideas about what constitutes a mythological narrative, as opposed to an historical one...

I'm rather convinced that contradictory opinions on this matter rest their blame solely on the shoulders of cognitive biases and very little else. I think consistent reason and logic are the best combatants of such biases, so I'm asking for that here.

With no offense intended to our newly recognized Hellenistic practitioners (At least in Greece), I've chosen a widely accepted mythological tale and I'd like anyone who's willing to attempt to "prove" to me that this tale is not, in fact, historical in it's telling of events.

Homer's Odyssey - http://www.boyle.kyschools.us/UserFiles/88/The Odyssey.pdf
The journey of Odysseus includes many factual places, describes substantiated social practices and beliefs, and it accurately describes physical cultural characteristics that seem chronologically appropriate, like dress, drink, building type, etc.

So, for those who deem such epic tales to be nothing more than fantasy and myth - how do you defend that position? How do you differentiate the (supposed) myth of the Odyssey from the history of the period?

I suppose to be fair, Odysseus took like 10 or so years to travel, what? 500 nautical miles, despite being a well traveled manly warrior. Went into the underworld, was a sex slave for Calypso for a while, had sex with that witch who turned his men into pigs, pissed off Poseidon by blinding a Cyclops, had his entire crew killed because they ate those golden sheep, encountered sea monsters and sirens and had to have literal protection from a Goddess just so he could make it home.
On paper at least, it seems a tad fantastical. Personally I would have gone with the Illiad as an illustration. Since historians do seem to think it often straddles the line between "myth" and history.

I mean, given that empires tend to go around building their empires and Homer was supposedly well traveled himself, I don't see why it would stretch the realms of possibility that he was accurate in many of his depictions of other places. That and the person we call Homer might have been an amalgamation of various other poets. Again, leading credence to the idea that accuracy of lands and peoples was merely incidental. So you could make the argument that this accuracy isn't that big of a deal in the long run.

In saying that though, isn't there always a kernel of truth to all legends/myths?