Relationship between logos and mythos game

Mythos/Logos | A blog about religion, science, and philosophy

The contrast between logos and mythos is not a contrast between a shows that a text (his and Plato's, and by extension, all texts) is, in fact, some sort of game. That is, it is not easy, but it is possible, to tell the difference between existence The word games, the riddles, point the way to a true ontological paradox: how. In particular, they evolved around two ways of thinking, which scholars have called 'mythos' and 'logos'. Myth was not concerned with practical.

That word does not exist; the asterisk that precedes it marks it as a purely theoretical construct that lives only in the never-never land East of the Asterisk.

Yet the hypothesis of its existence solves the riddle of the relationship among all the other words.

ARK Pyria: Mythos Evolved - FINALE

It was language whose inherent logic "excluded death" in the Burkertian gloss of the Parmenidean thesis, but language is also what provides the best basis I know for the kind of universal human conversation that Professor Burkert is striving toward. Although language is often thought to pose an uncrossable barrier beween people, some people think, as I do, that it is one of the great things that humans share, and that it offers a way across all barriers.

Coe describes both ends of the continuum between universal and culturally specific linguistic characteristics. First he speaks of cultural specificity: Other experimenters have reported that Chinese babies babble single syllables with different tones. In other words, most of the diversity of the world's cultures, so beloved to anthropologists, is superficial and minor compared to the similarities.

Racial differences are literally only 'skin deep. With this understanding of language in mind, let us turn to Plato's ideas about mythos and logos, which Professor Burkert positions as implicitly parallel to nature and culture. He argues that "the momentous leap from 'mythos' to 'logos,' from fantastic tales about gods and the prehistorical past to a credible account of permanent nature," has founded modern consciousness.

But precisely who took that step? Even Plato used the word mythos in a double sense, to mean "lie" and "truth. He transformed ancient mythic themes to make the myth of Eros [19] and the myth of the creation of the universe, [20] and he actually applied the word "myth" which he called muthos, since he spoke ancient Greek to the story of the world that he created in the Phaedo [2] [1] and to the myth of Er that he created at the end of the Republic.

And this ambivalence endures to the present day.

Image - Logo rise of | Rise Of Mythos Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia

In this way, when it came to myth, Plato managed to hunt with the hounds and to run with the hare. As Marcel Detienne has put it: Now, to assert vehemently that things like this are really so as I've narrated them, doesn't befit any man of sense. But that this is so, or something pretty much like it, about our souls and their dwelling place, since it is clear that the soul is immortal—it is quite fifting that we say that.

Professor Burkert suggests that "religion has provided some openings of the closed system. He admits, "If there was progress in the reduction of religious elements, clearly the steps were taken reluctantly by the Greeks themselves, and regressions remained possible.

This also means that the superiority of logos is becoming less clear. Those dead white males, the Greeks, were not the only ones to invent the proposition of a theoretical world, independent from social differences, nor did they, in fact, have all the answers; their faith in objective truth did not carry the day.

The ancient Vedic Indians are deader and were perhaps even whiter, and almost certainly more malebut their philosophy survives in India to this very day. Professor Burkert hints from time to time at Oriental sources and analogues to his Greek sources, but not to successors.

He admits, in the end, that we should not try to reinvent Plato. But are we, in fact, the heirs to the Greek tradition? Who, precisely, is it who can take comfort in the continuity of our own culture by following Aristotle other than people at the University of Chicago, whose mascot is Aristotle? Burkert himself remarks, of Socrates, "[He] and many of his followers distrusted the 'theoretical' view. But even in the so-called good old days, when everyone who mattered was able not only to read Greek but to translate editorials from the Times of London into Greek prose—even then, the paradox of the classics was that they excluded rather than included people.

The classics were the texts that we knew and they didn't. The classics defined a tiny elite who in turn defined the community as consisting of themselves, the people who spouted Latin quotations in the House of Commons. The classical education was designed primarily for the training of British civil servants, more precisely for the foreign service, the colonizers, the men sent out to rule the world, to rule India.

They were stuffed, like so many Strasbourg geese, with the Greek and Latin classics that constituted a bulwark against the supreme danger of Going Native, like the garlic clove that was thought to protect people against vampires. The power of the Classics enabled the colonizers to hang on to their own culture in the maelstrom of the temptations provided by the alternative cultures that they were to rule.

The classics created a kind of force-field around them, filled their ears with the wax of Homer so that they couldn't hear the siren song of the colonies. It was another aspect of this same instinct that made the colonizers wear white dinner jackets in the tropics, to make sure that no one least of all themselves might mistake them for natives; that made the government send them home after five years, lest they actually get to like the place; and that posted them to Australia if they knew how to speak Chinese a skill which might make them identify with the Chinese or get to like the Chinese.

Contra Karl Popper, Burkert denies that "Western cultural arrogance" remains embedded in the Greek theory of nature that postulates "free routes toward the truth. Only a tiny percentage of Americans read Homer even in English translation, let alone in Greek. People of my generation still say, of something apparently created de novo, that it sprang like Athena from the head of Zeus; try saying it in a college classroom, however, and you will be met by a bank of glassy, uncomprehending stares.

What has led you to appreciate mythos in a logos-heavy culture? In what ways have you embraced it and what value have you found in it? How do you think we should best integrate mythical and logical thinking? Translated by Henrik Mossin. Walter De Gruyter Incorporated, From Myth to Reason? Studies in the Development of Greek Thought. It has long been taken for granted that Greek society moved from mythos to logos in the sixth to fourth centuries BCE, culminating in the works of Aristotle.

Recent scholars, however, are challenging this generalization and seeking to understand the importance of mythos throughout Greek society. This book contains papers delivered at an academic conference in exploring this theme.

Logos and Mythos: A Response to Walter Burkert

This two-volume series explores Judaism, Christianity, and Islam from many different perspectives. He shows that both have been essential to theology, with the emphasis shifting back and forth in different times and in different religious communities. The Battle for God: A History of Fundamentalism. She brings these concepts into the twentieth century, exploring how these two ways of thinking are reflected in fundamentalist movements in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. She argues that these uniquely modern movements are the results of applying the works of mythos to the concerns of logos.

The introduction of the book provides an excellent discussion of mythos and logos. The whole introduction nicely illustrates the difficulty of talking about mythical thinking in terms of logical thinking. Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: I contend that this definition, insofar as it applies to evolution, only refers to the particular micro-events of evolution when considered in isolation and not the broader outcome or the sum of the events.

Let me illustrate what I mean by presenting an ordinary and well-known case of randomness: A die is a cube with six sides and a number,on each side. The outcome of any roll of the die is random and unpredictable; if you roll a die once, the outcome will be unpredictable.

If you roll a die multiple times, each outcome, as well as the particular sequence of outcomes, will be unpredictable.

Logo rise of mythos.jpg

But if you look at the broader, long-term outcome after rolls, you will see this pattern: Because the die itself is a highly-precise ordered system. This results in a system that is also precisely ordered, but in a way that makes certain outcomes more likely. After a thousand rolls of the die, one or more outcomes will come up more frequently, and this pattern will stand out suspiciously. But the person who cheated by tilting the odds in one direction may have already escaped with his or her winnings.

If you look at how casinos make money, it is precisely by structuring the rules of each game to give the edge to the casino that allows them to make a profit in the long run.

The precise outcome of each particular game is not known with certainty, the particular sequence of outcomes is not known, and the balance sheet of the casino at the end of the night cannot be predicted. But there is definitely a pattern: Basically, the Monte Carlo method involves setting certain parameters, selecting random inputs until the number of inputs is quite large, and then calculating the final result.

One can use this method with 30, randomly plotted points to calculate the value of pi to within 0. So if randomness can exist within a highly precise order, what is the larger order within which the random mutations of evolution operate?

One aspect of this order is the bonding preferences of atoms, which are responsible not only for shaping how organisms arise, but how organisms eventually develop into astonishingly complex and wondrous forms. Without atomic bonds, structures would fall apart as quickly as they came together, preventing any evolutionary advances. The bonding preferences of atoms shape the parameters of development and result in molecular structures DNA, RNA, and proteins that retain a memory or blueprint, so that evolutionary change is incremental.

The incremental development of organisms allows for the growth of biological forms that are eventually capable of running at great speeds, flying long distances, swimming underwater, forming societies, using tools, and, in the case of humans, building technical devices of enormous sophistication. The fact of incremental change that builds upon previous advances is a feature of evolution that makes it more than a random process. This theorem has been used to illustrate how order could conceivably emerge from random and mindless processes.

It is the retaining of most evolutionary advances, while allowing a small degree of randomness, that allows evolution to produce increasingly complex life forms.

Reproduction has some random elements in it, but is actually remarkably precise and effective in producing offspring at least roughly similar to their parents. It is not the case that a female human is equally as likely to give birth to a dog, a pig, or a chicken as to give birth to a human.