Mythopoeic Thought: The root of Greek philosophy.

javi2541997

Note: The original work on this subject was The Intellectual Adventure of Ancient Man, An Essay on Speculative Thought in the Ancient Near East by Henri Frankfort, H.A. Frankfort, John A. Wilson, Thorkild Jacobsen, and William A. Irwin (University of Chicago Press, 1946, 1977). If you are interested in this topic you can read it here: The origin of philosophy: The Attributes of Mythic.

Pre-philosophical thought can be characterized as "mythopoeic," or "mythic" thought. There is a large and growing literature about mythology, but here all that is necessary are the points what will serve the purpose of distinguishing philosophical thought from the thought of people in earlier Middle Eastern civilizations (Egyptians, Babylonians, etc.) about the nature of things. With the identification of the characteristics of mythic forms of human thought, it becomes possible to identify the unique innovations of philosophy. Note that philosophic thought does not replace mythopoeic thought but supplements it. We can discuss the following examples and characteristics:

1. Myths are stories about persons, where persons may be gods, heroes, or ordinary people.

For example: In Greek mythology, earthquakes reflected the wrath of the god Poseidon, who would shake the ground with his trident.
What changed in philosophy? Thales proposed a different account of earthquakes, that they are just when a wave in the cosmic ocean rocks the earth, which floats like a plate on the ocean. This explanation eliminated the actions or intentions of the gods.

2. Myth allows for a multiplicity of explanations, where the explanations are not logically exclusive (can contradict each other) and are often humorous.

For example: The Egyptian sun god Rê appears in various forms. Rê is a god in human form, with a blue skin, who sails across the sky in a boat.
Changed in philosophy: The theories of the earliest Greeks philosophers, especially those about whom we know the most, like Anaximander and Heraclitus, are systematic and internally coherent. Inconsistency is grounds for criticism, or, as practiced by Socrates, falsification.

3. Mythic traditions are conservative. Innovation is slow, and radical departures from tradition rarely tolerated.

for example: The Egyptian king Akhenaton who introduced a monotheistic cult of one God, the sun god Aton and abolished the worship of all the other traditional Egyptian gods. He was branded the "Criminal of Amarna" (the city he built to the Aton, in Egyptian the "Horizon of the Aton"). His name and memory, and those of three subsequent kings were erased from Egyptian history by the succeeding King Haremhab.
Changed in philosophy: Greek philosophy represented a burst of creativity. While Thales' views about water reflected long held mythic accounts, he was immediately superseded by the multiple novel theories of Anaximander, Anaximenes, Xenophanes, Pythagoras, and Heraclitus, all within 80 years.

4. Myths are self-justifying. The inspiration of the gods was enough to ensure their validity.

For exaple: Homer addresses the Muses at the beginning of the Iliad. The Nine Muses in Greek Mythology are uniquely charged with inspiring creativity.
Changed in philosophy: Parmenides, after the invocation of an unnamed goddess in his poem, The Way of Truth, offers substantive arguments for his views.

Which are your thoughts on this topic? Do you know other examples about mythopoeic?

Fooloso4

Do you know other examples about mythopoeic? — javi2541997

Plato's Phaedo. A detailed discussion:here

Plato's Timaeus. Discussed in far less detail here

javi2541997

↪Fooloso4

Thanks for sharing. I am completely fool for forgetting Plato's work. Yes, he is essential to mythopoeic.

javi2541997

↪Fooloso4

I found in the paper a very important quote about Plato: The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato. by Alfred North Whitehead, Process and Reality, p. 53 [Free Press, 1969]; the painting is the School of Athens.

I think it could be important to consider Plato as the real evolution of mythopoeic.

Fooloso4

↪javi2541997

The question of why Plato used mythopoesis is interesting.

javi2541997

The question of why Plato used mythopoesis is interesting. — Fooloso4

Yes, it is :up:

You already shared a link where that topic was discussed. Nevertheless, I found another paper who looks so interesting and I think it is worthy to attach it here: The Mythopoetic Mind of Plato: The Kingdom-Sage’s Muthos in Timaeus, The Republic, and The Symposium (Parts III & IV)

ChatteringMonkey

↪javi2541997

A good while back I read this book that dealt with these questions, a preface to Plato (history of the Greek mind). I thought it quite interesting at the time :

https://monoskop.org/images/0/0d/Havelock_Eric_A_Preface_to_Plato.pdf

Part of differences between myth an philosophy have to do with the transition of an oral tradition wherein myth originated, to a written tradition. Purely from a practical point of view alone, it is perhaps easy to see that oral pieces that are preformed, will tend to have different characteristic, like how they sound (instead of read) and the fact that you have to memorize them. Verse, narrative, rhyme all are mnemonic devices that you strictly speaking don't need anymore if a text is preserved in written form.

Fooloso4

You already shared a link where that topic was discussed. — javi2541997

The links I provided are to things I posted [that is, wrote] on the forum.

I do not agree with the claim in the link you provided that:

The purpose is to put myth to the epistemological test to ensure that it arises from validated true belief, the hieros logos (sacred tales).

The short answer, I think, is that myths provide answers that reasoned discussion fail to provide. Their effectiveness lies, at least in part, in providing beliefs that are taken by the listener to be true. Rather than validated true belief, Timaeus, in his own works, gives us "likely stories (ton eikota mython)". It should be noted that Socrates remains silent.

javi2541997

Part of differences between myth an philosophy have to do with the transition of an oral tradition wherein myth originated, to a written tradition — ChatteringMonkey

That's a very good point, indeed. I wasn't aware of the process of transition. It is another big difference we have to consider of. It is true that (as you explained with the link you provided) the sense of the reading is clearly different. If we read a myth it sounds so poetic but if we check a Plato's work it gives other feelings.

javi2541997

↪Fooloso4

Well, yes. I also think that the paper I shared fails to put mythopoetic in epistemology. But I didn't pretend to claim that I was agree with the author but the simple fact to consider how interesting other perspectives on this issue are.

Their effectiveness lies, at least in part, in providing beliefs that are taken by the listener to be true. Rather than validated true belief, Timaeus, in his own works, gives us "likely stories (ton eikota mython)". — Fooloso4

Exactly. As I typed above, myths tend to be self-justifying. The inspirations and beliefs about Gods or heroes are enough to ensure their validity without a basic argumentation.

Cuthbert

What a great topic, thank you.

I have reservations about attributing beliefs to people on the basis of myths, poetry, painting, sculpture etc. I imagine archaeologists of the future finding the statue of Eros in Picadilly Circus and saying "Look, Londoners still believed in the ancient Greek gods!" I say 'One for sorrow, two for joy' when I count magpies and I have no doubt that the number of magpies is utterly unrelated to my fortunes.

This is what they thought in the bronze age about such superstitions:

You tell me to put my trust in birds, flying off on their long wild wings? Never. I would never give them a glance, a second thought, whether they fly on the right toward the dawn and sunrise or fly on the left toward the haze and coming dark! — Homer

Thales proposed a different account of earthquakes, that they are just when a wave in the cosmic ocean rocks the earth, which floats like a plate on the ocean. This explanation eliminated the actions or intentions of the gods — javi2541997

He also said the world is full of gods. Just as we know there is no Eros and still put up a statue to him.

Fooloso4

↪javi2541997

The myth of the metals in the Republic is called a "noble lie".

The muses tell Hesiod that they speak lies like the truth (Theogony 27)

javi2541997

What a great topic, thank you. — Cuthbert

:up: :yum:

I imagine archaeologists of the future finding the statue of Eros in Picadilly Circus and saying "Look, Londoners still believed in the ancient Greek gods!" — Cuthbert

Fortunately! I think this is the path we should to keep. Never forget where art, literature, myths, philosophy come from. One of our duties is to maintain those "proofs" of their existence.

He also said the world is full of gods. Just as we know there is no Eros and still put up a statue to him. — Cuthbert

Yes! But Thales tended to be more argumentative than poets or "story tellers" who spread the myth in Ancient Greece.
At least one of the main skills towards Thales was their ability to justify his thoughts rather than to put up everything as pure affirmative or "true"

javi2541997

The myth of the metals in the Republic is called a "noble lie".

The muses tell Hesiod that they speak lies like the truth (Theogony 27) — Fooloso4

:up: :flower:

Related to muses there is also another interesting fact: there are no Muses of plastic arts (painting, sculpture, architecture), or of philosophy.
This must mean that the myth of the Muses was finalized before the advent of philosophy or of significant stone architecture.

Nevertheless, it is true that we use the word "Muse" to refer to a person (commonly female) who inspire us to make art.

We can see a good example in this paint which is called: The Sacred Grove, Beloved of the Arts and the Muses. They are represented by some artists with a connection to Ancient Greece or Greek philosophy.

Fooloso4

↪javi2541997

I just heard a segment on the radio talking about Nure-onna (wet woman). Given your interest in the Japanese and mythology I thought this was an interesting coincidence.

apokrisis

2. Myth allows for a multiplicity of explanations, where the explanations are not logically exclusive (can contradict each other) and are often humorous. — javi2541997

I like CJ Rowe's papers on this point.....

Archaic thought in Hesiod
https://fdocuments.net/document/archaic-thought-in-hesiod.html

Anaximander and the Relation Between Myth and Philosophy in the 6thC
https://ir.icscanada.edu/bitstream/handle/10756/291049/Rowe_William_V_1979_MPhilF_Thesis.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

He points out how the transition from myth to philosophy is marked by a broader psychological shift to demanding a consistency in all causal explanation.

The mythic mind is tolerant of holding many apparently conflicting explanations true at the same time. Gods can be both the personification of natural forces and human characters in social tales without that seeming an odd way of rationalising. Whereas the philosophical mind demands a reduction to some common cause that stands behind all things.

Cuthbert

I think we tend to make our own myths from the history of science and philosophy. Just as Aristotle looked at Thales's ideas about water in terms of his own concept of substance - perhaps not quite rightly - so we imagine the pre-Socratics discarding ancient superstition in a kind of early Enlightenment and the invention of pure science. We might see ourselves at the end of a great tradition originated by them. Should we be more critical of our hindsight? The texts are minimal. That leaves a lot of blanks for us to fill in however we want.

Whereas the philosophical mind demands a reduction to some common cause that stands behind all things. — apokrisis

Another kind of philosophical mind asks whether such a demand is justified. The world is as it is and if it turns out there is no common cause behind all things we just have to cope with that.

(A couple more posts and we'll be debating whether there is One or Many.)

apokrisis

Another kind of philosophical mind asks whether such a demand is justified. — Cuthbert

Sure. For every action, it’s reaction. The Enlightenment, hence Romanticism. AP, hence PoMo.

But that just tells you dialectics is the true totalising discourse. :razz:

Greek philosophy quickly got there with its unity of opposites and Aristotelean systems thinking. Peircean semiotics cashed it out in the modern era (after Hegel and others had kicked it about).

So the fundamental unity is to be found in a model of causality that places the accidents and necessities of reality in their appropriate systematic relation.

It is how you would glue unity and plurality together as the one system that is the key insight. And Anaximander certainly started that ball rolling at the dawn of Greek thought.

javi2541997

Given your interest in the Japanese and mythology I thought this was an interesting coincidence. — Fooloso4

:up: :flower:

javi2541997

Whereas the philosophical mind demands a reduction to some common cause that stands behind all things. — apokrisis

Agreed! This is a good difference between myth and philosophy too: the cause behind all things and arguments. That reduction of common cause come from a debate during decades among all the philophers. Whereas in mythology it didn't appear to be causes at all because there were multiple explanations without even logic. A good example is Egyptian mythology. The Gods and heroes are represented by different scenarios so randomly, without a common cause explained with argumentation.

javi2541997

We might see ourselves at the end of a great tradition originated by them. Should we be more critical of our hindsight? The texts are minimal. That leaves a lot of blanks for us to fill in however we want. — Cuthbert

We were losing a lot of originality, indeed. I am agree with you in the fact that we should be more critical with our insight but... where is our real background? Everything sooner or after end up in Socrates, Aristotle or Plato works (thus, Greek philosophy which flourished from mythopoeic).
Then, we have to take part in mythology again if we want to be critical again.

Agent Smith

Well written, highly informative OP. A thank you from all of us to javi2541997.

Mythology is, inter alia, what in modern terms would be novelization of one/more ideas - the point is to convey the meaning of them through a story involving, if the writer is worth his salt, interesting & relatable characters, good, bad and all in between. Story-telling around the fire, ring any bells? Everybody loves a story, oui monsieur?

The other facet to myths is the personification of qualities e.g. war has a god Ares, death is Thanos, life is Phanes and so on. I'm particularly partial to this approach - it resonates deeply with me. This way of looking at our world is not unique to the Greeks though; even Hindus do it e.g. there's a god of death, Yama, in that religion. Once we replace a something with someone, which myth is, doors open - we can talk, beseech, curse, negotiate, placate, persuade, instigate, the list goes on, with these gods/deities.

Myths make the abstract concrete - ideas become beings we can, sensu amplissimo, commune with.

javi2541997

Well written, highly informative OP. A thank you from all of us to javi2541997. — Agent Smith

Thank you to you for taking part in my thread! :sparkle:

The other facet to myths is the personification of qualities e.g. war has a god Ares, death is Thanos, life is Phanes and so on... — Agent Smith

Another common personification: Sun has a God Rê in Egyptian mythology; Helios in Greek mythology; Utu in Mesopotamian culture, etc...

I think is important to highlight the fact that mythology also uses human representations. For example: Odysseus. He is a legendary Greek king of Ithaca and the hero of Homer's epic poem the Odyssey.

Agent Smith

↪javi2541997

So we've discussed the pros of mythology, what about the cons? Let's not forget its limitations too, oui?

One downside that stands out like a sore thumb is sometimes people begin to rely completely on prayer and prayer alone which can range from simple :pray: to (animal/human) sacrifice :scream: . They forget to do their part (the king of Lydia's tragic fate is a case in point - he attacked Persia because the oracle of Delphi told him "a great kingdom will fall"; he didn't use his brains all that well).

javi2541997

So we've discussed the pros of mythology, what about the cons? Let's not forget its limitations too, oui? — Agent Smith

Sure, there are some cons towards mythology. A good example could be the lack of innovation.. Most of the tales pass through the story tellers without any doubt or criticism. I think this is due to the loyalty shown to the "Gods" who (according to Greek Mythology) are self-justifying and do not need approval from us. For example:Zeus then sets up the stone at Delphi, so that it may act as "a sign thenceforth and a marvel to mortal men"

But, philosophy shows more self-criticism during the transition of different periods. A good example could be Socratics vs Sophits

Agent Smith

↪javi2541997

Imagine how fascinating it would be to have a shrine to Sophia (wisdom), complete with a statue(ette) in every philosophy department around the world? You would be required to :pray: there, offer incense, and perform a small ritual before you begin your day. :snicker:

Back to the main page now - the negatives of mythology. It's kinda a mental illness/cognitive bias (re agent detection/delusion) vis-à-vis current psychological paradigms. If one wants to worship Sophia one has to do so half-jokingly nowadays (re the Flying Spaghetti Monster). If you don't, be ready to be the laughing stock of your colleagues.

javi2541997

You would be required to :pray: there, offer incense, and perform a small ritual before you begin your day. — Agent Smith

:lol: plot twist: countries with a deep tradition in Hinduism tend to have similar rituals. Such as India and Thailand: Hindus, though, aren’t the only South Asians to worship elephants. Buddhists, for instance, believe so-called “white” elephants, a light-colored variant, carry special significance. In Thailand, white elephants are considered the king’s property, and wars have been fought over these relatively rare animals. S15 EP7: THE ELEPHANT MEN Living Gods

If one wants to worship Sophia one has to do so half-jokingly nowadays (re the Flying Spaghetti Monster). If you don't, be ready to be the laughing stock of your colleagues. — Agent Smith

I don't get this :sweat:

180 Proof

The story I prefer to tell myself is one of metacultural development from mythos (infancy) to logos (adolescence) to ethos (adulthood) to philosophos (maturity) ... — 180 Proof

Logos striving against (yet never without) Mythos. — 180 Proof

↪javi2541997

Agent Smith

↪javi2541997

White elephants aren't exactly white; they're just light grey if I remember correctly. Talk about lowering one's standards. :snicker: Yellow is the new black? :chin:

There's more to worship than merely begging for help - it tends to purify/sanctify relationships via a power asymmetry between the worshipper and that which is worshipped. Some like it but then some don't. I knew this guy in college; one day I swung by to his room and noticed all his books were strewn on the floor. I asked "what's up?" His reply was that if you keep them on the shelf, they're above your head and that would have the unpleasant consequence of failing to understand them; in other words the contents of the books would "go over his head". Instead of worship, he looked at Sophia with contempt - an inverted worldview worth pondering upon. Si comprehendis, non est Deus, no, no, not at all!

Cuthbert

I'm rather sceptical about historical timelines that suggest continual improvement towards a pinnacle of intellectual achievement that is - happily and co-incidentally - our own enlightened times and beliefs - which we may then enjoy contrasting with the benighted superstitions of the ancients. I wouldn't swap science for mythology. But I'm wary of hindsight and narrator bias. The ancients weren't dumb and we ain't too clever.

Agent Smith

mythos (infancy) to logos (adolescence) to ethos (adulthood) to philosophos (maturity) — 180 Proof

Ati sundar! :clap:

Mythopoeic Thought: The root of Greek philosophy.

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions