Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Logos, Mythos, and Society
cmanteuf
Member (Idle past 6765 days)
Posts: 92
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 11-08-2004


Message 1 of 4 (213117)
06-01-2005 1:34 PM


In message http://EvC Forum: Why This Belief? -->EvC Forum: Why This Belief?
BostonD writes:
To me information is reliable if it can be deduced logically and is supported by evidence that is tangible.
I don't mean to pick on BostonD. I've seen this sort of sentiment expressed before by many people on this forum. But I do want to discuss something that I've been pondering for a while, and this was the quote that set me off. It is off topic to the original debate, so I'm trying to open a new topic.
I've been reading Armstrong's _Battle for God_. She discusses what she believes to be a fundamental distinction between types of knowledge: mythos and logos.
Mythos is myth. "The mythos of a society provided people with a context that made sense of their day-to-day lives; it directed their attention to the eternal and the universal."
"Logos was the rational, pragmatic, and scientific thought that enabled men and women to function well in the world."
She notes that during the Englightenment and the creation of the modern Western culture logos eclipsed mythos, made it seem useless. Logos (harnessed by the scientific method) was so powerful, so good at what it did, that it seemed possible to do away with Mythos completely. Notre Dame turned into a "Temple of Pure Reason" would be an example of that, as the Englightenment took a turn for the bizarre.
The EvC debate is a reaction to that; whereas the enlightenment replaced mythos with logos in the modern world, fundamentalists (of all religions) try to replace logos with mythos.
Many scientists try to keep clear the distinction between logos and mythos with the difference between the Supernatural and the Natural world; Philosophy of Science people with the difference between Ontological Naturalism and Methodological Naturalism. And yet, in the popular conscienceness, we have ended up with a society that views logos and mythos as at war with each other.
Is this a valid distinction in ways of thinking, between myth and reason? If the distinction is valid, is it important? Should we say that the two are different and both are important, and should not interfere with each other? How did we end up with a society where the two often are seen to be at war with each other? Is this "war" detrimental to society and the individual?
Chris

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by robinrohan, posted 06-01-2005 3:14 PM cmanteuf has replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 4 (213122)
06-01-2005 1:37 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 4 (213182)
06-01-2005 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by cmanteuf
06-01-2005 1:34 PM


mythos and logos
The EvC debate is a reaction to that; whereas the enlightenment replaced mythos with logos in the modern world, fundamentalists (of all religions) try to replace logos with mythos.
I am familiar with Armstrong's works, and I think the point she is making is that in the last 200 hundred years, the discussion about the truth of relgious doctrines begin to turn toward thinking of mythos (religious) as logos (science), as you say. And so we have attempts to prove mythos by using the method of logos, which is impossible. The literal reading of the Bible is an example of mistaking mythos for logos.
So rather than your interpretation of replacing logos WITH mythos, I would say her idea was that fundamentalists CONFUSE logos with mythos.
mythos provides meaning and values.
logos provides factual knowledge about nature.
My own view is that Armstrong's distinction is very important because the thrust of her work is to de-emphasize belief in particular doctrines and emphasize a way of life that is compassionate. So it really doesn't matter what you "believe."
Armstrong even claims that the whole idea of the necessity of believing certain doctrines is a relatively modern phenomenon and a distortion of religious ideas in antiquity.
Religion, for Armstrong, is an art, not a literal truth.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 06-01-2005 02:15 PM
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 06-01-2005 02:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by cmanteuf, posted 06-01-2005 1:34 PM cmanteuf has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by cmanteuf, posted 06-01-2005 3:46 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
cmanteuf
Member (Idle past 6765 days)
Posts: 92
From: Virginia, USA
Joined: 11-08-2004


Message 4 of 4 (213193)
06-01-2005 3:46 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by robinrohan
06-01-2005 3:14 PM


Re: mythos and logos
robinrohan writes:
So rather than your interpretation of replacing logos WITH mythos, I would say her idea was that fundamentalists CONFUSE logos with mythos.
A better way of putting it then the way I did.I think you stated what I was driving at but not getting at.
Chris Manteuffel

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by robinrohan, posted 06-01-2005 3:14 PM robinrohan has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024