Talk:Mythology

Collections of mythical knowledge

Was there a collection of knowledge, sort of like an encyclopedia, that provides detailed information of any of the ancient myths that was written at the time they were concieved like encyclopedias written in stone tablets? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.37.169 (talk) 07:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Jung to Campbell Citation Needed Issue

Although I am not the originator of the citation needed template on this page , I can see the issue clearly and would like to impose this simple request:

Could the original author of this section (20th Century...) please do a re-write so as not to insinuate that all 20th century scholars of mythology think alike? The attempt to include a segue from each preceding paragraph is implying such a premise. In particular to the Jung/Campbell reference, the highly notated current citation is attempting to do this specifically and, while Campbell and Jung may have had some congruent views on the subject of mythology, The phrase "Following Jung,..." is attempting to segue from the previous paragraph wherein the main discussion of Jung is in reference to his theory of archtype and, while some of Jung's work was an influence to Campbell's own theories on mythology and an inspiration for Campbell to expand his cultural knowledge further, it can not be said that Campbell directly agreed with Jung's archtype model. The current citation provided, explanation and all, still does nothing to prove this in any concrete manner and could be considered original research. WP:OR

If there is no correction or discussion in one week's time, I'll do a re-write of the section.Hyzerflip (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Hyzerflip (talk) 22:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced, unclear, and seemingly unrelated passages removed

I removed the following text from the section on the functions of myth:

The figures described in myth are often the result of circumstances which may have a moral interpretation. They are worthy role models of human beings because they embody certain combinations of human and animal traits. For example, the Centaur is part man, part beast. The upper body, being human is a symbol of rationality. The lower body, being of a horse is a symbol of animal instinct. The Centaur thus represents the uniquely human psychological challenge of animal instinct in relation to the rational mind. This example shows that myths are not only valuable due to cultural assumption (or 'spirituality'), but because they portray a set of symbols which can be interpreted morally. It is not necessary to introduce divine experience to explain these symbols, since a symbol is by definition a depiction of an idea in physical form. (bird = power, horse = beast, tree = knowledge).

Prior to the modern age, the experience of life is embedded in religion or in cosmology (story-telling) and not separate from it. This is because, in pre-modern cultures, religion was not an "experience to enter into", but a way in which life was organized around story-telling and was thus present in all aspects of life..

In the function of myth, it is important to distinguish between mythology itself, and the concept of a mythical era. Claude Levi-Strauss shows that mythology may be derived, like science, as a natural outcome of the relationship between conscious human beings and nature. Cultures create mythological beings in order to explain human behavior. For example, a person who acts maliciously may be described as like a snake. Over time, this becomes a myth of a snake-man. The idea of a mythical era, however, is a modern construct which is not real in any sense, because it is not possible to a specific time in the past or present when human myths did not exist.

Mythological beings are still being created today. One modern myth, Frankenstein , is an abominable, part-human creature resulting from a scientist who has lost touch with any moral sense. Another modern myth is the android, a machine which resembles a human in ever other way, but does not actually exist in reality. However, one of the primary reasons they are considered in science fiction, now, is because they represent the idea of a rational machine attempting to be human. Both examples, although they do not exist, introduce moral questions which are useful to humans.

Most of it was not sufficiently sourced (e.g. the stuff on Frankenstein). Remember, we cannot add things into the article just because it seems "obvious" to us that they are myths; we need published sources saying that they qualify as myths. Also, the bit from Levi-Strauss was sourced, but it was put in the wrong section (i.e. the section on function rather than the section on origin).

Finally, I fail to see the direct relevance of the claim that pre-modern religion was not an "experience to be entered into". The editor seems to have added that to justify his/her decision to reword the section so that it no longer claimed that "traditional societies" use myths to attain "religious experience". I changed it back. The source (Eliade) for the "religious experience" statements explicitly states that pre-modern, traditional societies do use myths to attain religious experience. There may be other sources with other opinions, but they can be mentioned here only if they explicitly discuss myth (not religion in general).

If anyone disagrees with my edits, please discuss it here. Thanks.

--Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

General edit for clarity

I edited the "Function of myth" section to sound less authoritative and more properly attribute the ideas presented to the specific scholars form which they originated (as is already done throughout most of the article). I moved Joseph Campbell's specific definitions of the functions of myth to this section form '20th century theories' for obvious reasons. I have properly linked and cited all changes. I would appreciate cogent discussion of these edits here rather than broad-brush reversions.Hyzerflip (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Criticism Section Needed

Hey, I noticed a few problems with this entry. First off, it needs a criticism section. This would include the critiques of mythology given by the Pre-Socratics (such as Heraclitus), Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, as well as the Skeptics and probably the Epicureans. This criticism section should also include the work on those opposed to myth such as Rudolf Bultmann and Walter Kaufmann, and mention and give a link to Demythologizing (and inevitablly its friend Deconstruction). Why is there no mention in this forsaken entry of the great philosopher, Ernst Cassirer? Anyone ever heard of his study, "The Myth of the State"? Wherefore critiques by George Santayana? And of course, the blatant Orientalism that is part and parcel of the whole enterprise of explaining away and summing-up other people's belief systems (a la Edward Said)?

Teetotaler 4 October, 2010 —Preceding undated comment added 03:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC).

Hi my name is Mitchal could you explain me of why early people would write it down even know If they dont exist. I may sign in this wikipedia but i havent decide yet so I'm 14 year old and maybe if you could help me understand this so I can work in my project Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.66.28 (talk) 17:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding the school I graduated from regarding Mythological Studies

Under External links I added the school I graduated from in Mythological Studies. It is the only school in the country strictly offering an M.A./Ph.D. in the field, therefore I felt it may be appropriate to include in this section. thoughts or comments? Nholly (talk) 17:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Euhemerist / Evemerist transliteration

Many of us would appreciate seeing the alternative transliteration of "euhemerism," to wit "evemerism," included in the dictionary/wikipedia. This word "euhemerism" is currently enjoying some degree of popularity, but the fact remains that nobody is running around today saying "Euhemeros," "euhemerism" or "euhemerist" because these transliterations are difficult to pronounce. Thus, these words have been transliterated from the Greek also as "Evemerus," "evemerism" and "evemerist," for the same reason that the word "euangelion" became "evangelism."

Here are a few book citations where the transliteration "evermerism" is proffered:

In "Christianity and Mythology" (1900, p. 315), J.M. Robertson comments about "Euhemerism (or Evemerism, as the word ought to be written in English)..."

A search of Google books will reveal the use of this term and spelling as "evemerism" dating back to at least as early as 1856, in the London Quarterly, v. 6, which has an entire chapter entitled "Evemerism Fills All History with Fictions."

In the mid-20th century, Edouard Dujardin said:

"Evemerism is the doctrine of Evemeras, a Greek philosopher of the fourth century BC, according to whom the gods were men..."

Furthermore, a Google Book search for the transliteration "evemerist" or "evemerism" reveals 208 books using those terms. Many of those books are 100 years old, given the transliteration authority.

Experts in ancient and modern Greek assert that such a transliteration is appropriate, pointing to the word "evangelist," which, like "Euhemeros" is spelled with a "u" or upsilon in the orignal Greek. Yet, in modern Greek the "eu" is pronounced "ev." As Wikipedia states:

"The word evangelist comes from the Koine Greek word e?a??????? (transliterated as 'euangelion') via Latinised 'Evangelium,' as used in the canonical titles of the four Gospels, authored by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (also known as the Four Evangelists)....The verb form of euangelion, euangelizo (transliterated "evangelism")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelism#Etymology

The same process may be found with the Greek word "I thank" or "thank you," which is spelled "eucharisto" but which is pronounced "eVkhareesto." Because of the difficulty in pronunciation and the fact that the word is in reality pronounced "evemerism," we are requesting that you included this transliteration in your dictionary/website.

The following relevant link may be helpful: http://www.freethoughtnation.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=2160

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Jose5643 16:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The Mythicist Position

Many of us would like to see the mythicist position worked into the article here.

Acharya S has created the first succinct, clearly explained comprehensive position for mythicists in her book, Christ in Egypt (2009):

The Mythicist Position:

"Mythicism represents the perspective that many gods, goddesses and other heroes and legendary figures said to possess extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes are not "real people" but are in fact mythological characters. Along with this view comes the recognition that many of these figures personify or symbolize natural phenomena, such as the sun, moon, stars, planets, constellations, etc., constituting what is called "astrotheology."

As a major example of the mythicist position, various biblical characters such as Adam and Eve, Satan, Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joshua, King David, Solomon & Jesus Christ, among other figures, in reality represent mythological characters along the same lines as the Egyptian, Sumerian, Phoenician, Indian, Greek, Roman and other godmen, who are all presently accepted as myths, rather than historical figures."

- Christ in Egypt: The Horus-Jesus Connection, page 11-12

"What is a Mythicist?" article

The Mythicist Position video

--Jose5643 16:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jose5643 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Jose. Thanks for your suggestion. However, I think this is the wrong article for your proposal. This article is simply titled Mythology; thus, it should contain only a very general overview of the basic characteristics of myths and a very cursory summary of major approaches to studying myth. At most, the "mythicist position" should get a one-sentence summary in the section on the study of myth. A more appropriate place for a discussion of the mythicist position would be Jesus myth hypothesis or perhaps a separate article titled The mythicist position. If you have any more questions, let me know. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 21:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Phatius is right. A mere "see also" is more than enough. In my view, this article needs to remain completely off-limits to the Christ myth nerds. It is enough that they cause havoc at the dedicated Christ myth theory (now unhappily called "Jesus myth theory") article. It is unacceptable that this red herring should have even the slightest influence on the main "mythology" article. A definition of "Mythicism" as, essentially "Mythicism represents the perspective that mythological characters are mythological characters" is idiotic. "Mythicism" in the Christ-mythers sense of the term is "the perspective that Christ is a mythological character". Period. Acharya S cannot be cited as a relevant source to anything other than Acharya S. This is pulp literature on what would be a serious topic. But since it is clearly impossible to turn the "Christ myth" topic into something encyclopedic without going insane, I prefer to turn a blind eye to such stuff being discussed there as if it was "literature". But I cannot see myself agreeing to any such stuff being submitted to mythology. There is enough good literature on the topic to make this WP:UNDUE by several orders of magnitude. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This article should at least acknowledge the existence of modern religions, or non-modern religions that have survived modern times, and how the only thing that separates these religions from the notions of mythology is that many people still believe these modern notions. The article should not act like modern religion doesn't exist or that it's something completely different from mythology. At least make mention why modern religion is not discussed in the article, rather than acting like it is completely irrelevant to mythology. Modern religions and mythology are essentially identical and should not be treated as though they are completely different. Pulseczar (talk) 14:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Lead as summary

The lead does not adequately summarize the article. Because of prior editing cycles it is primarily an apologetic "usage" section to ensure readers don't argue over the word usage later. I will add to and rearrange the lead with the view of demoting some of its current text to the "related concepts" section (which would be better titled "terminology") at a later date. JJB 17:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it's a good idea to split the 2 examples (comparative mythology and Greek mythology) off into their own paragraph? While reworking the article a while back, I specifically wanted those examples to illustrate the fact that "mythology" can mean either the study of myths (as in comparative mythology) or a body of myths (as in Greek mythology). Removing them to a separate paragraph makes it less clear what specific point they're supposed to illustrate. (I also think that the phrase "As examples" should be changed to "For example", but apparently people disagree with me.) I won't press the point, because I don't think it's that important. But I thought I'd put in my two cents. By the way, I think your edits, overall, are a step in the right direction. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes and no, and thank you. That paragraph indicates text that is overweighted on a single point and can be demoted from the lead to its own section. But I think you'll like how I do so. JJB 15:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Science slap

"Because it is not the job of science to define human morality, a religious experience is an attempt to connect with a perceived moral past...". Ummm, dont tell that to the secular humanist, the humanist secularist, the agnostic, the athiest. We dont need religion to make us humane. 108.23.43.73 (talk) 23:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)