Greek mythology. — Noble Dust

It is true that Greek mythology and philosophy are different from each other in terms of reasoning and knowledge. Despite the fact that mythology could be -sometimes- extravagant it shows us interesting metaphors. @Agent Smith shared with us Medusa, but I also like Narcisus myth

Narcissus ⚘

Despite the fact that mythology could be -sometimes- extravagant it shows us interesting metaphors. — javi2541997

This is what I'm talking about. In 2022 we view it as extravagant, but doubtless it wasn't viewed as such 2,000+ years ago. So what's the difference? What's the difference between our perception of reality in 2022 vs. the ancient Greek perception of reality in _____ year? If we define mythology as extravagant, it certainly wasn't defined as such at the time that it took shape. And no, the idea that it shows us metaphors is just us projecting our modern concepts of poetry and literature unto the past. The metaphor didn't even exist at the time.

What's the difference between our perception of reality in 2022 vs. the ancient Greek perception of reality in _____ year? — Noble Dust

I guess the main difference lies in polytheism vs monotheism. Back in the day, Roman and Greek empires were polytheist and had a different perception of reality. It is easier to make metaphors when you believe in different aspects inside nature rather than being indoctrinated by one God because this view is pretty simplistic.
I even think that since Christianity took part in Roman Empire all the arts and knowledge started to be so simplistic

In 2022 we view it as extravagant, but doubtless it wasn't viewed as such 2,000+ years ago. — Noble Dust

Starting with the Presocratics, Greek philosophers were very sceptical of mythology. Plato (and probably Socrates) thought the ideal republic ought to curtail the teaching of myths.

But maybe I don't know what is meant here by "extravagant".

And no, the idea that it shows us metaphors is just us projecting our modern concepts of poetry and literature unto the past. The metaphor didn't even exist at the time. — Noble Dust

You seem certain of this, but it's a striking claim that doesn't fit with my knowledge. Aristotle wrote about metaphor, and you only have to read the Odyssey to see lots of them. On top of that, it seems that they're deeply ingrained in all languages, hence are not modern.

If you mean metaphor more generally, something more like allegory or symbolism, then I can see that it's much more difficult to disentangle any allegorical interpretation from our own points of reference, but as far as I know it's reasonable to think that allegory played a role, especially because there are obvious examples of explicit allegory in 2,000+ year old texts (the allegory of the cave).

Starting with the Presocratics, Greek philosophers were very sceptical of mythology. Plato (and probably Socrates) thought the ideal republic ought to curtail the teaching of myths. — Jamal

:fire:

Starting with the Presocratics, Greek philosophers were very sceptical of mythology. Plato (and probably Socrates) thought the ideal republic ought to curtail the teaching of myths. — Jamal

We should make a distinction between myths and what is called "mythology". Plato makes frequent use of myths. Some are his inventions, some are reworked from existing myths, some are said to be of foreign origin. In the Republic myths serve a necessary function, but they are taken from the poets and put in the hands of the philosopher-kings. Put differently, the philosopher-kings are philosopher-poets.

In the Phaedo the limits of reasoned speech leaves them in danger of misologic. The truth is, we do not know the truth of what happens when we die, and so Socrates turns to myths. The myths are intended to "charm away" their fears and to persuade them to live just lives.

:up:

Aristotle wrote about metaphor, and you only have to read the Odyssey to see lots of them. On top of that, it seems that they're deeply ingrained in all languages, hence are not modern. — Jamal

From my reading of George Lakoff's Metaphors We Live By, I'm not really sure where literalism end and metaphor begins.

Even speaking of beginnings and endings of linguistic concepts presents them as physical objects with starting and ending orientation, so that was arguably a metaphorical statement by me.

It's all very blurred to me, which it is, but, again, it's not literally blurry.

I think everything is golden.

"Golden" as a characteristic has a deep connection to exclusivity and richness. Nevertheless, Mishima's point of view in his book "The temple of Golden Pavilion" gives another perspective. Their beauty is related to the "sublime" that is even scary for the protagonist (Hayashi Yoken).
[...]Throughout his childhood he is assured by his father that the Golden Pavilion is the most beautiful building in the world, and the idea of the temple becomes a fixture in his imagination.
[...]Mizoguchi tells her about his experiences. She tries to seduce him, but he experiences visions of the temple.
The 'Kinkakuji' is an assemblage of extremely beautiful sentences, and the whole work is filled with an artistic beauty and transiency that holds Kinkaku-ji Temple at its center. Although the Kinkaku-ji Temple itself was a human work, the behavior and feelings of mankind before it were full of sordidness and weakness. However, perhaps transience alone was one thing both did have in common.

The truth is, we do not know the truth of what happens when we die, and so Socrates turns to myths. The myths are intended to "charm away" their fears and to persuade them to live just lives. — Fooloso4

:fire: