The Role Of Mythology

[cacian]

what would you say is your favourite myth?
and
what is the true purpose of mythology?

I have not favourite myth as such but I am interested in
Cassandra's Myth because it also plays on the notiong of curse.
and
most intriquing is Plato's Myth of the Cave.
I do not know whether there is a purpose for a myth because many written stories and reported facts canbe turned into myths because they cannot be proven for example Plato's description of Atlantis.

[Gahlen]

Can you define "myth"? You imply, in your comment on Atlantis, that a myth "cannot be proven", but I wonder if that's a useful criterion. There are lots of stories that can't be proven; that alone surely doesn't make them myths. And on one level, at least, Plato's Socrates clearly thinks the allegory of the Cave is true, which might indicate that the question of proof, and the truth or non-truth it implies, is actually secondary.

As for a favourite: I'm quite fond of the story of Orpheus going down into the underworld to rescue Eurydice. I particularly like the versions of it in Virgil and Rilke.

As for a true purpose: I think there are lots of purposes. I think it would be reductionist to say that one of them was the "true" one.

[Pierre Menard]

I'll leave the role of 'myth' to others for now, I'm a little too dazed to think too deeply about it.

But as for a favourite myth or myths, I'll second Gahlen's mention of Orpheus and Eurydice, a long time favourite of mine. Especially fond of Rilke and Ovid's treatment.

Some others:

Aeschylus' version of Prometheus in 'Prometheus Bound'
The Iliad/Odyssey
Icarus flying too close to the sun

I'll add some more later on.

[cacian]

Can you define "myth"? You imply, in your comment on Atlantis, that a myth "cannot be proven", but I wonder if that's a useful criterion. There are lots of stories that can't be proven; that alone surely doesn't make them myths. And on one level, at least, Plato's Socrates clearly thinks the allegory of the Cave is true, which might indicate that the question of proof, and the truth or non-truth it implies, is actually secondary.

As for a favourite: I'm quite fond of the story of Orpheus going down into the underworld to rescue Eurydice. I particularly like the versions of it in Virgil and Rilke.

As for a true purpose: I think there are lots of purposes. I think it would be reductionist to say that one of them was the "true" one.

Hi Gahlen thank you for your post.

My definition of myth is indeed very vague hence the Atlantis bit.
'which cannot be proven can be myth and which cannot be myth is just it' is my take on it.
I think as soon as ones has taken pen to paper and proceeded to write about something is for me for classified as just that a story.
About Atlantis I ask myself this: what is the purpose behind Plato writing about Atlantis?
What was he trying to achieve?
In his writing there is nothing to suggest that Atlantis will one day be no longer and that is where I am puzzled.
Atlantis if it is disappeared years after Plato.
Another example to explain what I mean is Pompei.
No one wrote about Pompei there was nothing in the books as elaborated as Atlantis yet it was taken down by Vesivisuis and the only reason we know about is because it is still there.
Atlantis is the reverse, it is written about in length by PLato but there is nowhere to see it. There is nothing to confirm that what plato was on about and so it is just yet another fictional work. Why? not sure.

Mythology was something the greeks took too. In writing again. Why? no idea.
I see it as a kind of entertainment like ads on tv or a newspaper.
Was it read by the masses? I have no idea.
Was mythology the bible of all bibles for the greek? I do not know.
Reading a myth does not mean I am myth it is just means a compilation of stories for the greek to 'shine' I guess and maybe make an impact and history in the world is another.

[russellb]

Would Adrian Henri's 'mythical poem' 'the Entry of Christ into Liverpool' count as a 'myth?' If so it's my fave...great poem...i recommend it! (is there something about myth that it is making a claim, one that is not in fact true? The problem with this may be that myths, I've been reading recently about Babylonian mythology, may never have actually been intended to be literally true... but rather were seen as a sort of making sense of the world. I guess, taking an example from Indian literature, the story in the Bhagavad Gita may never have been literally believed but it would be seen to be allegorical, concerning 'spiritual' rather than actual warfare. By definition, I think, we can say myths aren't literally true, but perhaps they were never intended to be...)

[ralfyman]

For the second question, try books by Joseph Campbell and others.

[cacian]

Would Adrian Henri's 'mythical poem' 'the Entry of Christ into Liverpool' count as a 'myth?' If so it's my fave...great poem...i recommend it! (is there something about myth that it is making a claim, one that is not in fact true? The problem with this may be that myths, I've been reading recently about Babylonian mythology, may never have actually been intended to be literally true... but rather were seen as a sort of making sense of the world. I guess, taking an example from Indian literature, the story in the Bhagavad Gita may never have been literally believed but it would be seen to be allegorical, concerning 'spiritual' rather than actual warfare. By definition, I think, we can say myths aren't literally true, but perhaps they were never intended to be...)

I did look at the poem and it looks rather political.
Whether making a claim is a myth or the other way around I do not know.
I think people will always read and believe or not. There are some who like to read and be somewhere else with the reads and others just read to look at words. It is an art you know haha.
I am not so good on spirits because I do not believe they exist. I can quite firmly say spirit is a myth.
It is funny the word TRUE because I think it is not about a something that is true. It is about whether I believe it.

[cacian]

For the second question, try books by Joseph Campbell and others.

Thank you ralfyman.

[Lokasenna]

No love for Norse myth? Shame...

Well, I suppose I am to some extent an expert on myth - my doctoral thesis is, after all, devoted in its entirety to Scandinavian mythology. It's hard to pick a favourite (there are so many!), but I would probably go for the story that is embodied in the name I use: Lokasenna, the 'insults of Loki'. The trickster god gatecrashes a party of the divines and proceeds to slander everybody present, laying bare their shames and weaknesses for all to see. It it truly wonderful.

As for what the function of myth is, well that's a huge question. I would argue that myth reflects a mixture of things: the half-remembrance of the distant past, the idealised 'otherworld', a queered reflection of the social world of the day, an element of didactic allegory, and perhaps most importantly a justification of ritual.

[cacian]

Lokasenna, the 'insults of Loki'. The trickster god gatecrashes a party of the divines and proceeds to slander everybody present, laying bare their shames and weaknesses for all to see. It it truly wonderful.
This is very interesting.
Three things come to mind
Fliting gods and morals. All very humanlike features isn't it.

Although I am not sure about this bit:
Loki, amongst other things, accuses the gods of moralistic sexual impropriety, the practice of seidr, and bias.

Sex indecency sorcery and bias. These are allegations by a god towards other gods.
I thought the whole point of a god is that he or she is above all these things.
To be a god is to achieve sanctity hence perfection. Well at least the way I see it.
I understand that a god would not engage in any of these if he or she is already achieved godliness.
All the three things loki is accusing others of are humanfeatures. To be a god is to be perfect. To be human is to be imperfect. At least that is what the bible says.

[Lokasenna]

Oh, the Norse gods are very humanlike. They are emphatically not held up as moral paragons - they are fundamentally flawed, and of course mortal. They wallow in filth, just like the humans that worship them.

[prendrelemick]

I like the Cassandra myth too. Cassandra is given true sight to see into the future, A wonderful gift BUT (and with those Greeks there is always a but) she is cursed so no one believes her. Subtle and typical, nothing is ever straightforwards.

[JCamilo]

I like to think Mythology was a form of language that predates philosophy and their chidls, science and religion ,then was manifest on the form of art and adopted by those structures. But then, This is certainly not a huge argument.

Cacian, being God was not being perfect. Even the old testament god was hardly "Perfect", he was more "all". All other mythologies (Included the jewish one) represented their gods with human traits, because that is what the humans understood or wanted to represent. Guys like Loki are interesting because they represent well that all myths are not static, they have contradictions and the time and contact with other culture, exposes this, bringing figures who are meant to "accuse" the gods. It was much of the primary role of Satan in Lot story, Prometheus in the greek myth, etc.

[cacian]

I like the Cassandra myth too. Cassandra is given true sight to see into the future, A wonderful gift BUT (and with those Greeks there is always a but) she is cursed so no one believes her. Subtle and typical, nothing is ever straightforwards.

It is indeed an intriguing myth not without its own flaws. And as they say there are two side to a story.
I guess one as bestowed as Cassandra that with a gift of forseeing others' futures could not foresee her own one.
Not very straightforward as you say.
Is that a cassandra's curse or is that the curse of the myth, the true curse that is?

[cacian]

I like to think Mythology was a form of language that predates philosophy and their chidls, science and religion ,then was manifest on the form of art and adopted by those structures. But then, This is certainly not a huge argument.

Cacian, being God was not being perfect. Even the old testament god was hardly "Perfect", he was more "all". All other mythologies (Included the jewish one) represented their gods with human traits, because that is what the humans understood or wanted to represent. Guys like Loki are interesting because they represent well that all myths are not static, they have contradictions and the time and contact with other culture, exposes this, bringing figures who are meant to "accuse" the gods. It was much of the primary role of Satan in Lot story, Prometheus in the greek myth, etc.

I see what you mean.
I obviously had and still have other ideas of what a god is. I guess opinions are personal when it comes to gods. Mine is definitely perfect.:biggrin5:
I would find it pointless to call someone a god if they are going to be similar to humans. And that is why I questioned Lokesenna myth.
I would be extremely disappointed to think a god behaved like a human. And so I stick to my original idea without the original sin. A god is nothing like a human. :)

bringing figures who are meant to "accuse" the gods. It was much of the primary role of Satan in Lot story, Prometheus in the greek myth,
I think this is very telling because the accusative word that I find derogative.
Accusations usually not without consequences and are often based on either truth or lies. Accusing someone is pejorative proving the accusations to be true is prerogative and hangs on a balance. It is a myth.

[DanteExplorer]

I would say pretty much anything in Ovid's Metamorphoses.