|WikiProject Mythology||(Rated B-class, Mid-importance)|
Thoughts on furthering the critics section
I think the criticism section should include a presentation of Leszek Kolakowski's arguments. He argues in his book "The Presence of Myth" that the mythical thinking never has "left" or "been left aside". Rather human thinking is always and inevitably mythical. (Sometimes less, sometimes more, though.)
Or as the amazon.com book description puts it: With The Presence of Myth, Kolakowski demonstrates that no matter how hard man strives for purely rational thought, there has always been-and always will be-a reservoir of mythical images that lend "being" and "consciousness" a specifically human meaning.
- Sounds good. Be careful, though. This article isn't just about "mythical thinking"; it's about a specific explanation for the origins of mythology. Basically, according to the Frankforts' theory of mythopoeic thought, ancient man didn't think in terms of fixed, necessary laws and, therefore, saw events as acts of god (rather than outcomes of natural processes). Make sure that Kolakowski is specifically criticizing the idea that mythopoeic thought has been abandoned. I haven't read Kolakowski; for all I know, he could simply be arguing that modern man still clings to mythical images or still feels moved by mythological themes. It's quite possible that modern man has abandoned mythopoeic thought even if he retains images and themes from mythology. However, you're the one who introduced Kolakowski, so I assume that you're the best judge of whether he's relevant. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
The cited source for this page(there is only one) is initially interesting but devolves into a politically charged rant that gives the distinct impression that it is grinding axes having nothing to do with Mythopoeic thought. I realized the low probability of any further reading value when I reached the reference to J.K. Galbraith as a crypto-socialist. One could take such a label in stride but it was in the midst of a series of statements that communicate more of the author's political opinion and a currently internet pervasive set of notions about economics that are most likely outside of the author's particular education and expertise.
- Hi. I think you misunderstood the structure of the article. The external link listed at the bottom is not a "source" for the article's claims. The sources are the books listed in the "Sources and bibliography" section. Look at the endnotes. Anyhow, I agree that the external link is a bit annoying. It connects you to an article written by a man (a philosophy professsor, apparently) who likes to inject his political philosophy into everything from metaphysics to discussions of Near Eastern fertility goddesses. Yet he does provide a good summary of mythical thought. Thus, the link is appropriate (although I wouldn't be devastated if someone decided to remove it). --Phatius McBluff (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)