The Survival Of Myth Despite Science Philosophy Essay

The Survival Of fabrication Despite Science Philosophy try onThe survival of story despite the advancement of science and philosophy in the classical classic world green goddess be explained by its tie-in with so many facets of classical culture education, literature, drama, art and its importance in relation to theology, ritual and the after-life. Furthermore, the scale of the work on fable prevail that of the few philosophers and scientists, who were often completely able to affect the minority. Fundamental to this head focus of survival is the relationship amid romance (muthos) and reason (logos). In Greek, muthos direction story, and relates to the medium traditionally used to describe the feats of the gods and heroes central to Greek mythology. tidings translates as word, and whilst this has many meanings principle, argument, explanation and reason, the generally accepted meaning is reason. The deuce enclosures then, whilst both relegateing an explanation of the world, do so in secern ways myth provides vivid, descriptive narrative often as a form of entertainment, while reason presents empirical arguments supported by logic.Whilst the Greeks had previously relied on myth as a means of explanation, to reinforce social, policy-making or ethical positions, to uncover or express tensions and dilemmas within society, or to impart a deeper message, during the fifth and fourth centuries, spots towards myth began to change. Both Plato and the historian Thucydides for example, associated myth with old wives tales, entertaining perhaps, nevertheless with no substance. According to Joanna Overing (1997), Myth or mythos became understood as a form of speech unconnected to reasoned discourse or logos. As such myth became delimitate as opposed to both truth (myth is fiction) and to the quick-scented (myth is absurd). (Overing 2) She cites Vernant as argue that central to the new emphasis on logos over muthos is the change magnitude promine nce of written text as against the tradition of oral verse (Overing 2).The most significant groups involved in the change in attitude towards myth, were the Pre-Socratics and the Socratics. Pre-Socratics is the modern term for philosophers from the sixth and fifth centuries BCE, while Socratic indicates Socrates and his contemporaries. Originally, the term casuists interrelatered to anyone who was sophos (wise), and could apply to poets, musicians, philosophers and statesmen. In the fifth century BCE howalways, it began to refer a group of travelling intellectuals who specialised in tutoring persuasive speech. (While Pre-Socratic and Socratic ar both terms that de none the period of the philosopher, the term sophist refers to the method, it is possible therefore, to be both Pre-Socratic and a sophist, like in the fountain of Protagoras.) Where Classical mythographers depended on the supernatural for their explanations, philosophers pursued the rational direct that is open in n atural events. Myths, specifically in this discussion, Greek myth, tended to focus on people, whilst the Pre-Socratics were focused on finding natural explanations. The major difference however, between the Pre-Socratic philosophers and the mythographers of the time, was their approach to explaining the external world myths, lessonly ambivalent and self-justifying, allow numerous explanations yet the Pre-Socratics aimed to find a single cosmological principle.The first titular histories were composed by Herodotus and Thucydides in the fifth century, and these were followed by attempts by Socrates, Plato and Aristotle to acknowledge the external world through logical inquiry. Considered one of the defining moments in the human perception of the external world, these journeys into science and philosophy1represented a shift from the preceding belief of a world controlled by aleatory gods, to that of a structured universe understood through scientific rumination and rational thoug ht (Study Guide 130). Some of the earliest speculation on this structured universe can be traced to Thales. In his Histories, Herodotus describes Thales foretelling of a solar eclipse This change from daylight to darkness had been foretold to the Ionians by Thales of Miletus, who frozen(p) the date for it in the year in which it did, in fact, take place. (Herodotus) By modern standards this foretelling may not seem very precise, and we can be confident that it wasnt predicted through any scientific understanding of its cause, nevertheless, Thales prefigure demonstrates an understanding of the order of the world, inasmuch as he had correctly interpreted anterior observations of the phenomena by the Babylonians.Diogenes Laertius makes it clear that Protagoras, a Pre-Socratic philosopher and sophist, was fundamental to the debate of muthos versus logos quoting Protagoras as saying, Man is the measure of all things (Laertius) and later, Where the gods are concerned, I am not in a po sition to ascertain that they exist, or that they do not exist (Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers 9.52). The first citation appears to be unequivocally reduction the importance of the gods in favour of man and his rational ability, however, the second quote suggests that Protagoras was actually noticeably cautious in his declarations. To further examine his thoughts, we should recall his statement that There are many impediments to such knowledge, including the obscurity of the publication and the shortness of human life. (Laertius, Lives of the Eminent Philosophers 9.52) This seems to declare that science and philosophy do not have all the answers, and in fact, may not ever find them given the shortness of human life. This, in contrast to a tradition of mythology that has seemingly always provided explanation, may deter any potence converters. It is difficult unfortunately, to interpret these sources accurately since we have no reliable contemporaneous context. Howev er, what this example does make clear, is that the division between traditional myth and the appear philosophies was considerable, especially when taken into account with the trial and execution of Socrates.Socrates is today credibly the best-known of the ancient philosophers, not least because of the circumstance leading to his death, and was an substantial figure in the intellectual developments of the fifth century BCE. His views on devotion are most clearly seen in the accusation laid against him Socrates is blameable of refusing to recognize the gods recognized by the state, and of introducing other new divinities (Laertius). However, it is difficult to be sure of exactly what Socrates beliefs were, particularly with regard to Xenophons Memoirs of Socrates, in which he argues that Socrates conceived that the gods were accountable for his abilities in divination, and that therefore, if he trusted in gods, he surely mustiness have believed in gods (Xenophon). The execution of Socrates by the State demonstrates the magnitude of the curse that they felt these new divinities posed. Although myths were not initially intended to communicate moral and/or political beliefs, as Champlin explains, they were routinely manipulated by emperors in order to enhance their own reputation, by appropriating the gods and heroes of myth and legendary historypoliticians could present images laden with meanings which were quickly recognizable to a broad public (Champlin 144). The rational order that philosophers were searching for could not be manipulated in the same way that myths could, leaving emperors without one of their leading advertising schemes.Poetry, literature and drama were a substantial part of the Greek culture, and central to them were the Greek myths which provided seemingly interminable inspiration. The ancient writers often altered myths to suit their own agenda, be it private choice, or to reflect the political or social regularises of the time. Pl ato appears to view this influence of myth on society not just as unacceptable, but as almost damaging, explaining that relating myths might encourage people to mirror the actions of the gods and do the worst crimes, yet think he is doing nothing amazing (Plato 378b2 4). He states explicitly that the stories told by Homer, Hesiod and other poets are false (Plato 377d4-5), that they contain no moral exemplars, and that even their benefit as allegories is ineffective, since the young cannot distinguish what is allegorical from what is not (Plato 378d6). His proposal to throw out the majority of the stories is tantamount to rejecting the Greek cultural heritage, and would presumably have been viewed by many as the final disrespect. There is an apparent paradox however, in that much of Platos own philosophic work is infused with myth. Murrays explanation of this is that Plato does not intend to free the mind from myth, but rather to appropriate myth from the hands of the poets and c onstruct new myths that volition serve the interests of philosophy (Murray). Platos faiths regarding what he views as the immoral behaviour of the gods are reminiscent of those of Sextus Empiricus who describes their behaviour as shameful and reprehensible (Empiricus). Also, like Plato, Sextus Empiricus name Homer and Hesiod as instrumental in circulating such immorality. He equates the gods behaviour with the worst of human behaviour giving the examples of stealing, adultery, and deceiving one another(prenominal) (Empiricus), all of which appear frequently in the stories of the gods and in doing so raises the question, If the gods are apparently morally inferior to us, are they worthy of our respect and fear? Sextus Empiricus statements exhibit the beginning of a more critical opinion of the gods that draws on logic and reason. It is possible, that Plato, and Sextus Empiricus, opinions, inadvertently facilitated the survival of myth because the Greeks were opposed to losing not only their primary means of entertainment, but indeed their heritage.In the classical Greek world, philosophers and scientists were still in relatively small numbers game, and often confined to the higher(prenominal) classes who had the time and money to explore and experiment. This meant that their ideas only reached the minority. Since the spread of their philosophical and scientific ideas was limited, it could be argued that myth and tradition would have been maintained simply by intellectual apathy.While the developments in philosophy and science were advancing considerably, myth and tradition retained its much of its influence over the Greeks, a troth that be seen in many of the extant texts from the time. The question of reason versus myth/religion is one that continues today even in the modern world, where headache relies on computers, international travel takes a matter of hours rather than days, weeks or even months, and where man has been to the moon, we still look towa rd a belief that is thousands of long time old. While there are numerous reasons to explain why myth has endured, it may be a simple case of greater numbers there was so much literature about myth that, in comparison to early philosophy, it stood a greater chance of survival. In my opinion however, it has more to do with human nature people need religion today just as much as the Ancient Greeks essential myth. This, in my opinion, is why myth survived in the face of the scientific and philosophic advances of the classical Greek world people simply need to believe in something greater than themselves.