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

:100: :sparkle:

. 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. — Cuthbert

Completely agree. Sadly, we currently live in a social context which depends on scientific materialism. It looks like the truth is based on some mathematical formulas but we forget and give up on imagination.
I am with you: I wouldn't swap science for mythology.
"mythopoeic," "mythopoetic," or "mythic" thought. "Mythopoeic" means "making" (ποιεῖν, poieîn, from which the word "poet" is derived) "myth" (μῦθος, mûthos). :grin:

Sometimes I think that the mythopoeic world lives on in QAnon and UFO culture.

lives on in QAnon — Tom Storm

I guess their followers see Donald Trump as Odysseus fighting against Cyclops.
Ivanka Trump as Penelope :joke:

Or Achilles - confined to his tent and waiting for things to get bad enough for him to emerge triumphant and win the day.

The ancients weren't dumb and we ain't too clever. — Cuthbert

You can say that again, but some would say humanity went through a "dumb" phase viz. post-Hellenistic religious stage (the Abrahamic triad) which lasted up until the renaissance (17^thth century?). What sayest thou?

Sorry to disappoint you, @Agent Smith, as I am one of your biggest fans, but you might deduce from my handle here that my spiritual home is amongst seventh century monks on a remote island. Not that I'm against progress. Far from it. I hear that someone has invented a better method of trimming goose quills so they hold the ink for longer.

No worries, I'm ok.

The word "myth" has a rather negative connotation in the modern world, its meaning very nearly is lie/falsehood. Myth busting is a bloody profession, spearheaded mostly by scientists. Those who view mythology as untruths probably miss the point of this large corpus of ancient wisdom.

If you are interested in this topic you can read it here: The origin of philosophy: The Attributes of Mythic. — javi2541997

Thanks for the article. I noticed your OP lists only 4 out of the 5 characteristics of myth and changes in philosophy as listed. The 5th:

5. Myths are morally ambivalent.
The gods and heroes do not always do what is right or admirable, and mythic stories do not often have edifying moral lessons to teach.

Ex 1:
The Egyptian god Seth (St) murdered and dismembered his brother Osiris (Wsir) and is later attacked for this by Osiris's son Horus. But Seth is then forgiven by Isis (ꜢSt), his sister and the wife of Osiris and mother of Horus, even though Seth had badly damaged Horus's eye in their fight.
[...]
the Egyptians recognized the moral awkwardness of putting the name of Osiris's murderer on his temple, but this did not discredit the cult of Seth or the king named after him. Some gods are just like that. But they are still gods.

Ex 2:
The Greek hero of the Iliad, Achilles, seems to be a far less admirable character than the Trojan hero, Hector, whom Achilles slays at the climax of the epic.

Changed in Philosophy: The Presocratic philosopher Xenophanes criticizes the poets for ascribing shameful acts to the gods:
Heraclitus condemns blood sacrifice and the worship of idols. The moralization of the Greek gods is thoroughly effected by Socrates and Plato, who cannot imagine the gods doing anything wrong or evil. A similar moral critique is carried out in contemporary Persian religion by the prophet Zoroaster (Zaraθuštra)... — Myth, Philosophy, Why the Greeks?, Parmenides, Greek History

[emphasis added]

So, the main characters are not always good, so what? Isn't that the whole point of a story?
The contrasts between good and evil...the slow and the quick...highlight thoughts, behaviour and actions with consequences, even if the moral lesson is not always obvious.

Is it true that Socrates and Plato cannot imagine the gods doing anything wrong or evil?

Which are your thoughts on this topic? Do you know other examples about mythopoeic? — javi2541997

Thanks for introducing this topic and new word for me. I'm going to stick with 'myths'.
There are some interesting, curious and questionable claims by the author.

The article starts:

How was Greek philosophy different from what came before? Or was it different?
Even though "philosophy," φιλοσοφία, philosophía, is a Greek word (rendered into Arabic as , falsafah), from φιλεῖν, phileîn, "to love," and σοφία, sophía, "wisdom," perhaps it was just a continuation of how people had always thought about things anyway. After all, it is not uncommon now for items of Egyptian literature, like the Instruction of Ptaḥḥotep, to be listed and taught as Egyptian "philosophy" (although the Tale of the Eloquent Peasant contains principles superior to much modern jurisprudence).

So if Greek philosophy is to be thought of as different, there must be ways of specifying that difference. Similarly, if Greek philosophy is to be compared with Indian (, darshana-shâstra) and Chinese (; Japanese tetsugaku) philosophy, there must be something that they have in common, and that can be mutually contrasted with pre-philosophical thought. — As above

[emphasis added]

I think the key question is how philosophy is defined.
I tend to think of philosophy as a process and a continuation of curiosity and seeking answers to questions about life, the universe and everything.
Myth contains philosophy and philosophy contains myth.
What or who determines what philosophy is?
So, I disagree that there is such a thing as 'pre-philosophical' thought.
Like 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. — Cuthbert

Returning to the article and points 1-4.

1. Myths are stories about persons, where persons may be gods, heroes, or ordinary people.
The article concentrates on a narrow set of myths and there is nothing that I can see about ordinary people. We tell ourselves stories all the time about the 'nature of things'.
With increased knowledge, the stories change with less reliance on Gods, sometimes.
Or other 'gods' or 'idols' replace them...
I'm sure we can all think of an exaggerated or idealized person or thing.
Some have already mentioned Trump...myths continue.

2. Myths allow for multiple explanations...and are often humorous.
As does philosophy. Even the more analytical, eternally argued over.

3. Myths are conservative. Innovation is slow.
How true is that? There are many different interpretations.
Consider the different aspects of myth:
https://www.britannica.com/topic/myth/Myth-in-culture

The author compares Greek philosophy which 'represented a burst of creativity'
How so? From which multiplicity of Greek stories to which Greek theories?

4. Myths are self-justifying. The inspiration of the gods was enough to ensure their validity.
Divine inspiration is the validation for the story?
Perhaps some thought that way, but not all.
Stories are told by ordinary people to relate their experiences and any wisdom gleaned.
The creativity of poets and prophets is inspired by real life and imagination.

Thus, myths are not argumentative. Indeed, they often seem most unserious, humorous, or flippant (e.g. Rê-Khepere above).
It still seems to be a psychological truth that people who think of new things are often persuaded of their truth just because they thought of them. And now, oddly, we are without an explanation for creativity. — As above

I would argue that myths/stories include argumentation, as in demonstrations of opposite views and can indeed be humorous as in the Dialogues of Plato.
Innovators are not necessarily persuaded of their 'truth just because they thought of them'.
What does the author mean by: 'And now, oddly we are without an explanation for creativity'?

An interesting article to consider and question.
Thanks @javi2541997

Sadly, we currently live in a social context which depends on scientific materialism. It looks like the truth is based on some mathematical formulas but we forget and give up on imagination. — javi2541997

Wow. That is some general statement or claim to make.
How true is it?
Where is the evidence; how do you know?

Thanks for the article. I noticed your OP lists only 4 out of the 5 characteristics of myth and changes in philosophy as listed. The 5th: — Amity

Yes, that's true. I didn't want to put the point number 5 because I was worried about being so tiresome. Nevertheless, I see you shared ir anyway, so thank you so much. Appreciated it.

How true is it?
Where is the evidence; how do you know? — Amity

Easy. Just check out what the millionaires spend their money: meta-verses, cryto-coins, fake internet worlds, artificial cells to live longer, private trips to Mars or Moon, etc...
Those "investments" are pure materialistic. There is not philosophy or imagination on it. I only see it as selfish people showing off their power and value over the rest.
I think we really missed what philosophy teach us: happiness, ethics, wisdom, reasoning, etc... and all of these virtues are not monetary.

I am still not sure what, if any, conclusions were reached by the author.
And then I noticed there was a follow-up...more questions.

Wherein lies the motivation for all of this text?

A brief description of ideas and principles characteristic of the Friesian and other modifications of Kantian philosophy editorially recommended in the Proceedings of the Friesian School, Fourth Series:... — The Principles of Friesian Philosophy

The Proceedings of the Friesian School, Fourth Series is therefore founded on the determination that the lapse of Friesian philosophy in English cannot be allowed to be. Now, Leonard Nelson and Friesian principles will be here on the World Wide Web, however heretical they are, for anyone looking for alternatives to the sterile, nihilistic, or illiberal mainstream of 20th and now 21st Century thought. Let this be the Palladium of Friesian Philosophy. — The Proceedings of the Friesian School

I didn't want to put the point number 5 because I was worried about being so tiresome. — javi2541997

I agree quoting and reading directly from an article can be tiresome. But what's one more little characteristic of myths, especially if it and the comparisons are questionable?
It's only tiresome if no questions are asked...and so far, the text has proved a useful starting point.
Thanks.

It's only tiresome if no questions are asked...and so far, the text has proved a useful starting point.
Thanks — Amity

Thanks for your kindly words, Amity. Appreciated them a lot.
Whenever I start a thread I am worried about if the users would like it or not...

A brief description of ideas and principles characteristic of the Friesian and other modifications of Kantian philosophy editorially recommended in the Proceedings of the Friesian School, Fourth Series:... — The Principles of Friesian Philosophy

I fully recommend you that philophical website. It is so interesting and there is a lot of information. You can learn a lot!

Sadly, we currently live in a social context which depends on scientific materialism. It looks like the truth is based on some mathematical formulas but we forget and give up on imagination.
— javi2541997

Wow. That is some general statement or claim to make.
How true is it?
Where is the evidence; how do you know? — Amity

Easy. Just check out what the millionaires spend their money: meta-verses, cryto-coins, fake internet worlds, artificial cells to live longer, private trips to Mars or Moon, etc...
Those "investments" are pure materialistic — javi2541997

That is a different kind of materialism, as you probably know.
You referred to 'scientific materialism', one definition:

Scientific materialism

This common underlying worldview is known as "scientific materialism" or "scientism." As defined by twentieth century philosophers William James and Alfred North Whitehead, for instance, scientific materialism is the belief that physical reality, as made available to the natural sciences, is all that truly exists [Haught2010, pg. 48].

It is clear that there is little room for religion in this philosophical system, since religion involves faith in unseen and presumably empirically untestable entities.
But religion is not the only victim of this worldview. If we fully accept scientific materialism, we would also have to discard art, literature, music, and many other fields of human endeavor that are essential aspects of our modern world. — science meets religion: scientific materialism

Is it true that we all 'live in the same social context' which may or may not depend on this worldview?

How many people find any kind of 'truth based on some mathematical formulas'?

I doubt the truth of your claim that: 'we forget and give up on imagination'.

Imagination is an inherent aspect of thought.

Imagination is involved in a wide variety of human activities, and has been explored from a wide range of philosophical perspectives. Philosophers of mind have examined imagination’s role in mindreading and in pretense. Philosophical aestheticians have examined imagination’s role in creating and in engaging with different types of artworks. Epistemologists have examined imagination’s role in theoretical thought experiments and in practical decision-making. Philosophers of language have examined imagination’s role in irony and metaphor. — SEP: Imagination

Whenever I start a thread I am worried about if the users would like it or not... — javi2541997

I understand that concern. What matters is that it inspires and provokes thought.
You do that exceedingly well.
I've started threads that don't inspire others :groan:
But that's not my prime motivation. I also don't bother too much about its popularity or lifespan.
Sometimes, it is an article or thought that I want to share and explore, just for the hell of it.
Usually, too lightweight and not obviously 'philosophical'! :chin:

I prefer your kind of discussion which informs and leads to interesting questions and discussion.
Cheers :party: :flower:

I fully recommend you that philophical website. It is so interesting and there is a lot of information. You can learn a lot! — javi2541997

Thanks, I've clearly had a quick look and yes, it's interesting but not so sure it's for me.

How many people find any kind of 'truth based on some mathematical formulas'? — Amity

To be honest, I personally think most of the people think in this way. In my view there are two different types of language: pure linguistic (fulfilled by philosophy, readings, mythology, religion, rhetoric, history, etc...) and mathematical (Physics, Chemistry, Maths, engineering, etc...)
Both groups have a common goal: understand the world and try to find out a meaningful life. I prefer the first ones rather than mathematical language.
Nevertheless, it looks like that there is a big part of the population who is sceptical about some theories if you do not show them with "essays" and "formulas"
For example: look how obsessed is the people with Artificial Intelligence or Metaverses.

I would sound "out of phase" but I think I will learn more about my life thanks to both mythology and philosophy rather than "AI" or robots resolving formulas.

Imagination is an inherent aspect of thought.
Imagination is involved in a wide variety of human activities,... — Amity

Agreed. We share the same point. Of course imagination is inherent to our thought. I was only claiming more "freedom" in our imagination trying to avoid taboos or limitations.
Thanks to imagination both mythology and philosophy developed through the years. But another important fact is how the thinkers/philosophers get rid of obstacles.

've started threads that don't inspire others :groan:
But that's not my prime motivation. — Amity

I experienced the same feeling :cry: I remember starting some threads and didn't get any answer... but as you perfectly said: that's not my prime motivation and it doesn't affect my motivation either.

How many people find any kind of 'truth based on some mathematical formulas'?
— Amity
To be honest, I personally think most of the people think in this way — javi2541997

'Most of the people' - in which community? Perhaps a particular field but I have no idea what the ordinary person knows of 'mathematical formulas'?

In my view there are two different types of language: pure linguistic (fulfilled by philosophy, readings, mythology, religion, rhetoric, history, etc...) and mathematical (Physics, Chemistry, Maths, engineering, etc...) — javi2541997

Applied creative language and thinking are arguably necessary tools in both fields of art and science.
Types of thinking which interact:
https://www.magneticmemorymethod.com/types-of-thinking/

Nevertheless, it looks like that there is a big part of the population who is sceptical about some theories if you do not show them with "essays" and "formulas" — javi2541997

Again, which 'big part of the population'?
Do you mean in academia?
Theories, I think, are by their very nature required to be shared and shown in the language of the discipline.

I would sound "out of phase" but I think I will learn more about my life thanks to both mythology and philosophy rather than "AI" or robots resolving formulas. — javi2541997

How is that 'out of phase'?

I was only claiming more "freedom" in our imagination trying to avoid taboos or limitations. — javi2541997

I think I understand. You mean away from the extreme or inflexible dogmas/institutions?
I don't think that is the same as your original claim but never mind.

But another important fact is how the thinkers/philosophers get rid of obstacles. — javi2541997

Yes.
Consider the kind and nature of obstacles; the internal and external.
The stories we tell ourselves and others tell us. How true are they?

Thanks for the conversation :sparkle:

Perhaps a particular field but I have no idea what the ordinary person knows of 'mathematical formulas'? — Amity

It is true that an ordinary person doesn't care about mathematical formulas. Nevertheless, I assume that he or she gives more credibility to scientific evidences rather than philosophical papers. For example: the Moon was always been a subject of study to mythology but until the humans didn't end up there they didn't give a "real" credibility.

How is that 'out of phase' — Amity

What I mean is that probably my way of thinking is away from modernism or new era of virtual content.

I think I understand. You mean away from the extreme or inflexible dogmas/institutions?
I don't think that is the same as your original claim but never mind. — Amity

No. What I mean is the possibility to develop arguments and essays in a pure humanistic view. Not depending on scientific validity for verification.

Thanks for the conversation — Amity

Thanks to you as always! :flower:

No. What I mean is the possibility to develop arguments and essays in a pure humanistic view. Not depending on scientific validity for verification. — javi2541997

Thanks for your clarification.
I so respect you, and other TPF participants, whose mother tongue is not English :100:
I couldn't even write a simple sentence in Spanish without the help of Google, even then...

Muchas gracias, como siempre :flower:
Como siempre :pray:

Those who view mythology as untruths probably miss the point of this large corpus of ancient wisdom. — Agent Smith

I see your point, but I cannot say that people regard Mythology as a world of untruths. We all know what important role played and a revered place it had in antiquity throughout the world. And that's why it is still and will always be taught in schools.
On the other hand, the word "myth" has today two main connotations, one literal --referring directly to mythology-- and one figurative --falsehood, as you mentioned. But yes, since we are too far from antiquity, the second one prevails. Unfortunately!
Man has the tendency to degrade things that were once very important but are not used any more to a considerable degree. And as I can see clearly, Philosophy is also included in them. Unfortunately!

Those who view mythology as untruths probably miss the point of this large corpus of ancient wisdom. — Agent Smith

It is not so simple:

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

Aristotle said that poetry is more philosophical and serious than history, because poetry tends to give general or universal truths while history gives particular facts. The poet is a "maker of stories" (Poetics, 145b)

In so far as such stories are not factual, they are fabrications. But they represent more general or universal truths than a description of some particular thing that happened at some particular time.

Plato's myth of the metals is called a lie because it is a fabrication. It did not happen. Socrates is a maker of stories. The truth of the story is that we are not all equal by nature.

It is not so simple — Fooloso4

Not an expert here - 10 minutes of "analysis" by Agent Smith doesn't hold a candle to decades of dedicated study by qualified mythologists.

I hear ya. The literal-figurative distinction probably didn't exist in antiquity or didn't matter as much as it does today. Fact & fiction merged together, all in an attempt to make sense of the world which seems to have been priority #1. This anticipated science - reason (facts/observation) + imagination (fiction/hypotheses/theories) - in a sense, oui?

Man has the tendency to degrade things that were once very important but are not used any more to a considerable degree. And as I can see clearly, Philosophy is also included in them. Unfortunately! — Alkis Piskas

Agree.

I will never understood the tendency to degrade both philosophy and Greek mythology. My only guess is that some powerful people who control the education don't want to have critical thinkers.

This looks like it could be one thread I could really get my teeth into.

First off … I want to try and figure out what definitions and explanations you have of the term ‘myth’? By this I am asking for different possible uses of the term and any nuances you add to personalise this term.

My take is that each and every individual has a personal ‘mythos’ over which - and from which - we build up our representation of the world allowing us to navigate it. In another line of thought I view the use of ‘myth’ in teaching and education as fundamental to human development that has been somewhat overshadowed by the written form.

Anyway, will read this thread more carefully later and see if I can pick anything out that will help us engage more on this topic.

Fun fact: Pathological lying in medical jargon is mythomania aka pseudologia fantastica.

The literal-figurative distinction probably didn't exist in antiquity or didn't matter as much as it does today. — Agent Smith

I just looked up the Greek word "mythos" (= myth) in my dictionary of Ancient Greek Language --a huge one!. Both meanings are included, but with a slightly different description. The first meaning refers to speech, narration, story, independently of being true or false. The second one refers again to story but imaginary or ficticious. A known example is Aesop's fables.
At some point, the word "mythos", used with the first meaning, was replaced by "logos" (=- speech, etc.), so the second meaning only was kept in frequent use, which is also the case today. Note also that the word we use for "fiction" is "mythoplasia" (= creation, making up of a myth), based on the ancient Greek verb "mythopoiein" (= create a myth).
The word "myth" indeed was very important for ancient Greeks and had --and still has-- a lot of derivatives.

Fact & fiction merged together, all in an attempt to make sense of the world which seems to have been priority #1. This anticipated science - reason (facts/observation) + imagination (fiction/hypotheses/theories) - in a sense, oui? — Agent Smith

Si ! :smile: