Classics and the Western Canon discussion
Ovid - Metamorphoses
>
Why myth?
date
newest »
newest »
Patrice wrote: "By "higher truth" does he mean moral? Religious? I like the George Washington story whether or not it was true. Of course there's an irony there, isn't there, in telling a false story about alwa..."I think by higher truth he means a noble truth, something above ordinary truth.
Everyman wrote: "Patrice wrote: "By "higher truth" does he mean moral? Religious? I like the George Washington story whether or not it was true. Of course there's an irony there, isn't there, in telling a false ..."Not sure I understand the idea of a "higher" or "noble" truth. This seems like a romantic concept?
Ted wrote: "Not sure I understand the idea of a "higher" or "noble" truth. This seems like a romantic concept? ..."In the context here, it suggests to me a truth that is other than the factual truth, or lack thereof, of the story in which it is embedded and which story is used for communication of that "higher" truth.
Ted -- can you say more about "romantic concept" as you see it applies here? I am just beginning to realize, let alone understand, the so-called "romantic movement" of cultural thought.
Lily wrote: "Ted wrote: "Not sure I understand the idea of a "higher" or "noble" truth. This seems like a romantic concept? ..."In the context here, it suggests to me a truth that is other than the factual tr..."
Lily, I wasn't expressing anything so elevated as referring to the "romantic movement", unfortunately. Rather I was sort of using the word "romantic" in the sense of "fanciful" or "imaginary".
Thus I was saying that it seems to me that there is just Truth, not different "kinds" of truth. Though I would admit that one could certainly speak of "more significant" truths and "less significant" truths.
An example of the former might be "Daylight saving time starts at 2 am tomorrow morning" (said of course on the correct day), whereas an example of the latter would be "Daylight savings time does not start tomorrow" (said most any day of the year).
A most interesting question is "What is a true statement"?
I have seen a true statement (made by a person) defined as satisfying the three following conditions: 1) The speaker believes what he (or she) is stating. 2) The speaker has good reason to so believe. 3) The statement is in fact true.
Condition 2 is the most interesting one, I think. And unfortunately condition 3 is many times unverifiable.
I would guess (only a guess) that this formulation has elements of the Correspondence theory of truth as well as perhaps the Pragmatic theory of truth.
But the subject of Truth is an enormous philosophical battleground. I don't remember where I saw the above formulation, but it would undoubtedly be objected to (and demolished, to their own satisfaction) by proponents of other theories of Truth.
But I think some of the issues of Truth may apply to questions and ideas about myth and mythology.
Ted wrote: "Thus I was saying that it seems to me that there is just Truth, not different "kinds" of truth. Though I would admit that one could certainly speak of "more significant" truths and "less significant" truths."I agree with the latter. I'm not so sure I agree with the former. I think there may be different kinds of truths, in part arising from the basis of the truth.
For example, I doubt that very many people would question that in a base-10 arithmetical system using standard European conventions, 2 + 2 = 4 is a true statement.
But I think if you offered the statement "Jane Austen is a better writer than Steven King," some people would judge that statement to be true and some to be false, and there is no way of proving definitively whether it is a true or false statement.
I would suggest that those are two different kinds of truth.
Ted wrote: "Lily,...I was sort of using the word "romantic" in the sense of "fanciful" or "imaginary"...."Ted, thank you for your thoughtful response. I am no student of philosophy, although an occasional dilettante or, perhaps more accurately, dabbler, so no attempt here to take this conversation further, for now at least
Everyman wrote: "Why do cultures create and tell myths? There is, of course, an extensive literature of this, which some here may or may not be interested in talking about.
Russell Fears contends that “a myth ..."
I like the question: Why do cultures create and tell myths? Since I don't know the answer, the following is not "truth", but rather my opinion based upon limited knowledge, a small amount of research, and some reading.
I think myths, in the context of Greek mythology, were created to provide an opinion of how the world works. Over time, these myths became historical in nature, and with the passing of enough time came to be accepted as truth by some, and with the passing of even more time and as verifiable information became available these myths were discarded. However, they continue to have value from a historical perspective in that they tell a tale in the evolution of a culture's thinking.
Russell Fears contends that “a myth is a means for expressing a higher truth.” ..."
Who is Russell Fears? I can't find him on Wikipedia or Amazon. I would have thought a parable or a fable would be a means of expressing a higher truth, but not a myth. But, I guess I'm using Book I of Ovid's Metamorphoses as my framework for defining a myth -- maybe more reading will change my mind.
Ovid's "Whatever God it was" reminded me of the account of the Apostle Paul in Athens a few decades after Ovid. It's in Acts 17, specifically verse 23:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?...
It's just something that jumped out at me while I was reading Ovid.
Patrice wrote: "I'd have to go back and find the exact quote but something like that jumped out at me too. Ovid wrote about "god" as though he were singular. Plato did that too, I think this is a real turning..."
"When the fulness of time was come...."
Elizabeth wrote: "I like the question: Why do cultures create and tell myths? Since I don't know the answer..."You're not alone. In fact, there IS no "the answer." There are many thoughts and ideas, and if I get a chance to I may run through some of the ones that Vandiver discusses, but it's very much an open question, and probably always will be. But I do think that discussing the question, and talking about some of the suggested reasons others have put forward, is worthwhile and interesting.
One interesting thing about what Vandiver calls "why" theories is that they are generally cross-cultural; that is, the theorists assume that people in very different cultures still tell myths for the same basic reasons. That in itself is an interesting assumption, that there is a basic unifying element of being human which causes very different cultures to tell myths for the same reason or reasons.
Laurele wrote: "Ovid's "Whatever God it was" reminded me of the account of the Apostle Paul in Athens a few decades after Ovid. It's in Acts 17, specifically verse 23:http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?......"
Very interesting. It raises the very important question of how a given group of people recognize a particular god as a or the (depending on whether one is polytheistic or monotheistic) god.
Euripides's play Bacchae deals with this exact question.
In fact, the Hebrew Bible seems to me to recognize that Yahweh is not the only god, but is only one of the gods, and the one whom the Hebrews are to worship as their primary god. But when he says “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery," it seems to suggest that other peoples have their gods, but I am yours. And he goes on to say “You shall have no other gods before me." Does this mean that they can worship other gods below him? That there is something of the polytheistic concept of Zeus as the primary god, but other gods below him?
Not that I am at all an expert in Old Testament theology, and there are others here who most definitely are. But I have often seen hints in the OT that Yahweh did not claim to be the only god in all the universe, but implied the existence of other gods, claiming only that he was the one whom the Hebrews should worship as their principal god.
Everyman wrote: "...But I have often seen hints in the OT that Yahweh did not claim to be the only god in all the universe, but implied the existence of other gods, claiming only that he was the one whom the Hebrews should worship as their principal god...."Well observed, Eman, with a slight quibble about using "Yahweh" as a name. We will want to notice the differences between tribal gods and nature gods, where those categories are recognizable. Tribal gods are usually associated with particular peoples and may be less likely to be transferable across cultures. On the other hand, a nature god may have one name in one entity and a different name in another, but still be considered the same god, e.g., Zeus/Jupiter, Hera/Juno, down through much of the pantheon of the Greek and Roman gods.
I would be one who does not agree with you on that, Everyman. For starters, I just came across this today:NIV Archaeological Study Bible: An Illustrated Walk Through Biblical History and Culture by Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Duane Garrett
-------
The Genesis account rejects the central motif of pagan religion: the deification of nature. Interestingly, it does not seek to elevate Yahweh over other gods. Indeed, in the seven-day creation account (Ge 1:1–2:3) Yahweh is not named; the Creator is simply referred to as “God” (Elohim), a more generic term. Even Genesis 2–3 provides no sense that Yahweh needed to establish his supremacy over other deities. There is no conquest of other gods or monsters, and no shrine or city is said to be the place from which God began the creative process. No sacred object is mentioned. The God of Genesis 1 is indeed the universal God.
------
The Bible does speak of God being above all gods, but sometimes those gods refer to angels and other times (mostly) to what the surrounding cultures mistakenly believed to be gods.
Patrice wrote: "Humphries wrote: Ovid, surely, was a romantic writer, not a classical one if..."No, certainly not a romantic. Ovid had a sense of humour you know, a sure criterium. I would rather think of rococo: classicism run wild.
Laurele wrote: "I would be one who does not agree with you on that, Everyman. For starters, I just came across this today:NIV Archaeological Study Bible: An Illustrated Walk Through Biblical History and Culture ..."
I agree with you Laurele. I attended Bible study classes for a number of years with, I assume, a well-known international Bible Study group and from what I recall, God told man to stop worshiping false gods. I went to Genesis 1:1 in Zondervan NIV Study Bible which says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The sentence names God using a proper noun, which in my mind means that the author of Genesis has no doubt in his mind that there is only one god, his name is God. The entire Old Testament seems to be one constant interaction between Jews and God, although sometimes, some of the Jews revert to the worship of pagan gods, and are punished for it.
Having said this, I think that the Bible is full of myths that were created over a very long period of time to explain the relationship between the Jews and God -- the God of Abraham, who today is followed by Jews, Christians, and Muslims alike. I would guess that Buddhists and followers of other religions would definitely view the Bible as myth.
From message 15, Everyman wrote: In fact, the Hebrew Bible seems to me to recognize that Yahweh is not the only god, but is only one of the gods, and the one whom the Hebrews are to worship as their primary god. But when he says “I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery," it seems to suggest that other peoples have their gods, but I am yours. And he goes on to say “You shall have no other gods before me." Does this mean that they can worship other gods below him?Hmmm! This is a subject that could fill a lifetime of discussion, and each person involved in the discussion would probably form their opinion or response based upon what they *believe*.
Many people, faith practicing Jews and Christians, for instance, might respond that many Jews and people from other nearby lands were polytheists (maybe pagans) and worshipped many gods at the time Moses wrote the first five books of the Old Testament, known as the Pentateuch. Jews believe and Moses said that he received word from God to convince other Jews that there was only one God and that He alone should be worshipped. As to worshipping other gods, I think there are many instances where God forbids the creating of any craven or false images (idols), which possibly implies that there are no lesser gods, only one God.
Some Christians, today, would say that the OT is the true and inspired word of God and that it tells the history of how God selected His "chosen" people. Those who believe this will support the state of Israel today on that basis alone, even if they wouldn't otherwise agree with that nation's policies.
Atheists and agnostics probably see the OT as primarily a historical document that includes a great deal of myth.
So, why myth? So that a people can try to make sense of and explain events from a historical perspective.
There is, of course, an extensive literature of this, which some here may or may not be interested in talking about.
Russell Fears contends that “a myth is a means for expressing a higher truth.” Indeed, it may be a primary vehicle for preliterate cultures to express its highest truths.
What, if anything, is the purpose (or are the purposes) of myth? In an age of scientific discovery, has myth lost its power? Or are myths still meaningful? Can myths convey truths in a way different from, and perhaps at times more effective than, legends, stories, epic (and non-epic) poetry, and the like?