Well, at least as far back as Thales, logos (re: "laws") has been used to demythologize – but cannot fully eliminate – mythos (re: "gods") in order to raise intelligible questions about 'reality or ourselves' which we do not know (yet) how to decisively answer. Suppositions and interpretations, not explanations, are the best, imho, (we) philosophers can do with nothing more than 'conceptual schema'.What do you think about the juxtaposition between ]logos and myth in the scheme of philosophical understanding? — Jack Cummins
It's not a matter of 'narrativity' or the absence of it but to use logos to transform mythos into narratives which frame - interpret as – explanable models (i.e. 'predictive' fact-patterns). This, I think, is what Thales and other Pre-Socratics (6th-4th century BCE) were up to.logos has been used to demythologize – but cannot fully eliminate – mythos — 180 Proof
'Lies are everywhere in the world, and you similarly create lies in literature...More cunning than animals, humans need to use lies to conceal their own ugliness in order to seek a reason a reason for living.' — Jack Cummins
I think so.Is story and metaphor central to all understanding of 'truth'? — Jack Cummins
The way I see it – if such models, for all their limitations, are both prevalent and more adaptive than the alternatives, then all the better for our reasoning capabilities and practices.So much thinking may become so concrete, as if models, including the mathematical and scientific ones, are seen as all encompassing. This may show a bias and diminishing of human reason — Jack Cummins
This book does not have the function of a proof. It exists as a sort of prelude, to explore the keyboard, sketch out the themes and see how people react, what will be criticised, what will be misunderstood, and what will cause resentment - it was in some sense to give the other volumes access to these reactions that I wrote this one first.As to the problem of fiction, it seems to me to be a very important one; I am well aware that I have never written anything but fictions. I do not mean to say, however, that truth is therefore absent. It seems to me that the possibility exists for fiction to function in truth, for a fictional discourse to induce effects of truth, and for bringing it about that a true discourse engenders or "manufactures' something that does not as yet exist, that is, 'fictions' it. One 'fictions' history on the basis of a political reality that makes it true, one 'fictions' a politics not yet in existence on the basis of a historical truth.
I am also wondering where autobiography lies in the scope of narratives and identity. How much is about 'objective fact', and subjective meaning? — Jack Cummins
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.