Myth has outlived its utility

Joseph Campbell and others argue that myth serves the purpose of binding society together for the greater social good. But I am not so sure. Here is my analogy.

The gun lobby argues that guns promote social good by allowing people to kill their own food and protect their homestead. That has some truth, but it ignores the fact that guns are used for a lot of evil things that don’t relate to harvesting food or defending the homestead. Likewise myth is used to unite society to feed the hungry and house the homeless, but it is also used to promote war, racism, bigotry, and other evils having no benefit to society.

So I asked myself two questions: Does the good use of myth outweigh the bad? And: Are there better tools than myth to achieve the social goals for which myth takes credit?

The first question is strictly a matter of opinion, and I believe that myth has caused considerably more anguish than it has resolved, but that is just opinion.

The real question on my mind is whether myth serves its function better than other tools whose purpose is the same. For example the Shriner’s Hospitals and the Lions Club Eye Bank provide enormous benefit to society without ever causing a single war and without depending on myth to promote their service. There are lots of other examples such as Meals on Wheels, Caritas, Adopt-A-School, and Goodwill Industries. And these are just examples from my experience. I am sure that others could name plenty of groups who provide service to society without depending on myth to justify their existence.

So I have to wonder if myth has outlived its utility. My conclusion is that it is time to replace myth as the focal point of our societal improvement. There are better ways to achieve the same goals without the negative side effects.

My guess is no, but I stand ready to be corrected on that. But, if no society ever has, then, myth may be necessary for the existence of society. Nietzsche said something to the effect that error may be necessary for life. I think myth may be necessary to bind human society. The reality of life, of what's going to happen, may be dim enough that rational beings wouldn't bother if they actually faced up to the starkness of reality. Myth provides the illusion of the possibility of something better.

But I'd go a step further and say that, while it may be a necessary means of binding society, its influence shouldn't be permitted to spread much beyond that. As soon as any nonverifiable, metaphysical doctrine is perceived as central to a society, those who are empowered to interpret, preach, or propogate that doctrine are automatically put in a position of unassailable power.

Popular mythology is often as much a means of excluding the outsiders as it is a means of binding members of the group. Lots of other social phenomena accomplish this same purpose, of course.

Additionally, as I've mentioned previously in this forum, myth--and specifically supernatural myth--is poisonous to reason and will always be a crowbar with which the believers can be beaten into some measure of submission.

Myths don't kill people, people kill people. How can we promote myth control without eliminating myth altogether?

Critical thinking, when used, is the cure for irrational or kneejerk acceptance of claims.

Rather than control it. And wouldn't that cause the loss of what you described earlier as a necessity to bind society. Is this a baby and bathwater argument?

Don't get me wrong, I believe it should be eliminated, but in your first response you indicated that it might be necessary.

Critical thinking might identify myth, but there's no reason that it has to eliminate it altogether. Folk tales can give a sense of community or union even if the members of that community recognize that the tales are embellished or entirely fabricated.

As I mentioned, there are other "binding" agents that help unite a community, and these can be entirely free of myth. Sports fandom is the first one that pops into my mind, but certainly patriotism, ethnic pride, and political philosophy can help join people together in some way or another.

So I can't answer your question. But your point about the possibility of something better is well taken. That seems to be a service that only myth can provide.

and their ancestors?

Whether pre-humans had myths, so you can't tell when, in the human development, myth began. But it is certainly an interesting question.

I have seen speculation that the big evolutionary step was coincidental with the development of ritual and graphic representations. But it is tough to find cause and effect or even which came first. And besides, art and ritual are not always related to myth. Hmmm? that is something to ponder.

You'll find, I'm fairly sure, that you've decided to define it differently than Campbell did.

A myth can be of the nature that Jesus is the Son of God, entirely human and entirely God, crucified for the forgiveness of our sins, resurrected the third day, and now sitting at the right hand of God.

A myth can be of the nature that all of human progress is tied in with class struggle, which monotonically is inclined towards communism.

A myth can be of the nature that humans always work towards their best communal interests, when given a chance, or that human nature is basically good (or, conversely, is basically bad).

Evolution can form the basis of a myth. Evolution speaks of reproduction and survival of a genetic type, not of morality or superiority in any sense other than survival of the species. But it's taken as a myth, so that people extend it to say that dems are "more evolved" than freepers.

As important as myths, which define some of the underlying assumptions in a society, is shared history. Myths provide the framework for interpreting facts. Research has shown that as long as there's a government people trust--usually because of shared myths enforcing common goals for actions--and a body of history that's been experienced by a group *and* interpreted in the same way by a group, interethnic differences simply don't much matter. You trust somebody of different race but under the same government/with the same sense of history more than you do somebody who is ethnically identical, but with different perceptions of history. In other ones, one society cannot have subgroups whose perceptions of events during their lifetime diverge *and* have more than a trivial amount of trust hold between those subgroups.

What would be interesting to see is if there are any myths that are shared by all humans, and which could be used as the basis for constructing a perception of historical events and formulation of common goals.

I can't find any definition of myth in my post. Please be more specific.

faggeddaboutit

where Campbell explains that we have the ability to create new and useful myths of our own that will not be recognized as such until they no longer meet the needs of the society that formed them.

But I still believe that there are better ways to achieve the same goals. Meals on Wheels does not need myth old or new. It only needs food, volunteers, gas and cars. Why do you think we need new myths when we can achieve the same result without myths?

you'd have understood that he was saying that what we do BECOMES the new myth. And that myth does not equate to 'old stories that aren't really true but teach a lesson'. That myth is the understanding of how we treat each other.

I did not realize I was required to understand Mr. Campbell in the same you you do. Please forgive me.

in the same way Campbell does.

Campbell: Myths are clues to the spiritual potentialities of the human life.
Moyers: What we're capable of knowing and experiencing within?
Campbell: Yes.

When a myth doesn't evolve along with newfound knowledge, it loses its relevance to authentic experience, therefore it loses its utility.

edit: To explain the ones not included in "Most", I mean those that don't make non-falsifiable statements, such as many about love, marriage, and personal heroism.

Of course, what constitutes myth can have various definitions. I think in general, we need to teach critical thinking to survive past the next century. The threat of religious war and harm to the environment are two areas that critical thinking must keep us from the brink of disaster. We're still fighting wars based on the ancient mythology of Abrahamic religions. We need to get beyond this stage of civilization. Regarding the environment, we need to think critically about impacts like global warming, pollution, over population, sustainable living, before we've destroyed nature and reduced the quality of life to very low levels.

I do think that humans have "spiritual" needs, but these needs can be built on rational foundations. We can live in harmony with the world, with nature, while fulfilling a wholesome, "spiritual" lifestyle. But there is no room for religious delusions that offer heaven and afterlife to believers instead of dealing with the reality and a sustainable existence on Earth. This may not mean complete destruction of all myths, but at the very least, myths need to stand up to the light of reason. For example, I think deep ecology or some other environmental based philosophy/science/life style is compatible with myths that may consider the Earth as a life force at the global level. Without making a deity out of the Earth, we can still show reverance to the Earth, hold it as sacred, maybe even allow room for myths. Any myths though need to exist side by side with reason. We can't go back to the age of mythology, before the age of reason.

The myth of nationalism is just as worn out as the myth of white supremacy. The myth of Adam Smith's "invisible hand" guiding our economics is just as tired as Malthus's myth that resources will run out and we will all perish.

Myths are not bad per se, but my argument is that we have better tools to do the job. As you imply in your example, there is plenty of science to motivate us to protect out environment. We don't need an Earth/Mother myth to justify protecting endangered species. If someone wants an Earth/Mother myth, I won't complain. But that shouldn't be the reason we treat our Earth well.

though many relate to the Earth as a mother. I threw that out as an example of a myth that can exist side by side with living a sustainable life on Earth. When myths exist within a rational framework, they seem pretty harmless. One thing is clear, that we need nature, and we as a civilzation tends to think of ourselves as above nature. That is the most dangerous myth of all.

I totally agree about myths not being just religious in nature. But one thing that they have in common is that they tend to grow out of false premises or noncritical thinking. Our civilization needs a quick change toward critical thinking. But I think if we deal with religious and environmental myths, the rest falls into place. Teaching those seeking rewards in heaven that it is Earth where they should be seeking rewards, will get them to seek equity and social justice while they are alive, on Earth. Teaching sustainable living, science and ecology, treating the Earth and all life forms with respect, will tend to make people treat each other more respectfully, to consider the full costs of capitalism. It's all related. Myths like the one that humans have more rights than the rest of life on Earth are very destructive. This myth has it's origins in religion, which makes it even harder to dispel.

But today I hear that Pat Robertson believes that global warming is real, so it gives me some hope for human kind.

You mean like the myth that humans are the pinnacle of evolution?

As I recall, Darwin never liked the term evolution. He used the phrase natural selection. It was the myth makers who called it evolution because that term better fit their motives. And of course the myth makers were seldom motivated by binding society for promoting the common good.

it would be much simpler to throw out my beliefs (myth) and become an atheist

then I could just see the world without thinking about the spiritual realm

yet, I choose not to simplify my world by eliminating myth and spirituality from my life.

I don't know why you bother to respond to my posts when you clearly don't understand them.

I respond because I choose to



I don't know why you bother to respond back to me since you are oh so much smarter than me
:crazy:






:spray:

The West has the myth of progress, for example. The English-speaking world has the myth of what the British call the "Whig interpretation of history," which is an extension of the myth of progress. The US has the myth of the "American Dream," which originated as right-wing propaganda to keep people supporting capitalism.

And the examples you cite prove my point that myth is often used for purposes other than to bind society together for the common good. In the cases you mention, myth is used to bring the herd together for the benefit of the slaughterhouse owners.

And I have to mention the myth of Manifest Destiny here just because it is my pet peeve. I think you can see the relationship to your examples.

Where Christianity and capitalism reinforce each other. This is the worst of humankind. Our country is a perfect example of Manifest Destiny in all of it's various forms.


http://www.cephas-library.com/church_n_state_rockefeller_and_evangelism.html

Mine is the Ludlow massacre. But then I was raised in a Union family.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rockefellers/sfeature/sf_8.html

"The face-off raged for fourteen hours, during which the miners' tent colony was pelted with machine gun fire and ultimately torched by the state militia. A number of people were killed, among them two women and eleven children who suffocated in a pit they had dug under their tent. The deaths were blamed on John D. Rockefeller Jr."

Just ask my Cherokee ancestors!

Christianity feeds directly into Manifest Destiny. It is man's destiny to rule over all lesser forms of life and the land that they live on, to inflict the Christian belief system on the indigenous peoples, and inflict capitalist principles on the world. At least in the Western world. The takers. Coincidentally, I'm now reading Ishmael by Daniel Quinn.

but I think you could argue that myth has never been particularly useful. Never mind the abuses and destruction and turmoil. Imagine how much better the world would be if societies had bound together around rational, practical realities, and all the time and effort that's ever been wasted on false belief had been applied to those realities and the larger common good instead of the limited common good of those who held a particular false belief.

If societies had bound together around rational, practical realities then the impractical and irrational members of society would have been omitted. Myth served the purpose of including the emotionally weak and intellectually challenged, binding society into a cohesive force of leaders and followers.

But I certainly agree with your larger point that we should have done better.

would exclude anyone or affect leadership/followership. The emotionally weak and intellectually challenged would just have better role models and more worthwhile projects to work on. Do you think there are fewer of them now or what? What's different today that makes you say myth has outlived its usefulness?

In your first post you talked about "bound together around rational, practical realities” then you substitute "more sensible societal goals"

The goals don't bind society together; the myth has achieved that before the goals are addressed. First society must be united, and then goals can be achieved.

The emotionally weak and intellectually challenged would not agree on social goals without an appropriate myth. For example, the social goal of helping the poor will not be achieved if the people believe the myth that the poor are lazy and stupid. But if you substitute the myth that poor people are put here by god to test your generosity, the problem gets solved. One myth unites, one myth divides. Same problem, same social goal, opposite outcomes.

And you asked what has changed. Numbers, ours not theirs. There are enough of us now that we don't absolutely need the people who are dependent on myth to motivate them to improve society. We are now a large and affluent segment of the population and when we see a situation like my example above, we address it without myth. We help the poor because we don't want to live in a society where poor people have to suffer. We do it because of our individual values rather than our shared values. At least that is my opinion.

who gives a shit. Something to bind society together other than myth. It's beside the point, anyway, because it didn't happen. Your idea isn't going to happen, either, because the world's still full of people who are dependent on myth. And I don't have the need, the patience, or the skills to win a debate with someone I'm in basic agreement with. Go nitpick someone who has a problem with what you proposed.

You are right, it was nit picking.

I was expecting something else. Way to start my Monday! :)

What we see as rational reality might be a limited perception. The idea that everything reveals itself to rational comprehension in and of itself may be false. Humans have many forms of perception that are not necessarily rational.

Rationalism might simply be the myth of the current era.

“Might be” this, “may be” that, “not necessarily” something else???

The people who show up at my local food bank are real, not rationalized.

They are hungry. They don’t suffer from a limited perception of food.

I help them (to a modest extent) because I have an individual belief (not a shared belief or myth) that it benefits my community.

I don’t understand how rationalism which may or may not necessarily be something else has anything to do with the original statement that we need better tools than myth to focus our social awareness. Feel free to elaborate.

why does it matter whether it is an individual belief, or a shared belief that motivates people to help out?

The source of the beliefs is less important than the beliefs themselves. Whether is derives from myth or not is tricky territory, because one person's myth is another's perceived truth.

So, if one believes in doing good for others, regardless of the source of that belief, that person is doing good. There is little enough of this in this world, myths or no myths, so quibbling over the source is a waste of time, in my opinion.

That myth has severe negative side effects. I thought I had made that clear in the original post. Individual personal beliefs don't have the negative impact that myth has.

between what you see as myth, and negative side effects. What exactly is your standard for measuring a positive vs. negative aspects of myths?

I think your thesis wobbles on a completely unprovable assumption.

Having worked in social services, including Catholic Charities as a non-Catholic, a religious belief you probably see as a myth, I know that Christian charities perform work that NO one else would be doing. I am not Catholic and never will be, but I certainly appreciate all the good work they do that no one else would be doing.

Individual personal beliefs can have huge negative side effects, if those beliefs are represented in an all-powerful dictator or monarch. Those individual beliefs are the exact problem with non-democratic forms of government.

Has brought countries together for self defense but it has also been used to justify wars of aggression. Clearly, wars of aggression are negative side effects. My thesis is that we have better tools to bring the nation together for self defense (or other common good) without the added benefit of wars of aggression.

Please don't make this about religion. Although religion is, in the original citation of Joseph Campbell, a type of myth, it is not the focus of my thesis.

I am sorry you don't see the "relevant connection" between the myth of white supremacy and the negative side effects of Jim Crow laws. To me that is obvious. Even if I settle for a modest standard of "number of fatalities", it is clear to me that many myths have negative side effects.

Please tell me which "unprovable assumption" you believe that my thesis rest on?

yet you posted it in R/T?

It can simply be a love of country, with no beliefs attached to it.

Myths don't exist for the purpose of doing good or bad. Myths don't exist for utilitarian purposes, either, other than to bind society together. They exist as a form of explanation.

Most myth is religious, this is a religious forum

you said:
"So I have to wonder if myth has outlived its utility. My conclusion is that it is time to replace myth as the focal point of our societal improvement. There are better ways to achieve the same goals without the negative side effects."

I think your idea is more of a false premise, that the utility of myth is to do good. That has never been the purpose of myth.

The First two sentences of the OP say: "Joseph Campbell and others argue that myth serves the purpose of binding society together for the greater social good. But I am not so sure.

Are you disagreeing or are you just being disagreeable?

The French consider themselves one ethnic group because of nationalism, when in reality they are better described as 4 (Northern French, Southern French/Occitanian/Provencal, Basque, and Breton). Nationalism give a false conception of a country's history because of anacronism, that is, projecting modern notions intopast eras. A good example of anacronism is saying Charlemagne was French, he could equally be called German or Dutch using the same nonsensical anacronistic reasoning.

to a thread that seems to have had a "hidden" bias in it anyway

If Rationalism is a myth, then it is unique among myths because it's the only one whose correspondence with reality can be tested and verified independently by different investigators and at different times. Show me another "myth" that can make that same claim.

And even if Rationalism does, by some postmodernist trick of equivocation, turn out to be just a myth, then it's still true that rationalism has greater verifiable correlation with reality than does any other myth. If one wishes to make the claim that, in other eras, myth likewise correlated strongly to reality, then I'd like to read the documentation in support of that argument.

Fans of the Matrix will immediately ask "what is reality?" which we can answer by borrowing from Philip K. Dick: "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."

More specifically, reality is that which is unchanged by belief or the absence of belief in it.

...and Straussian wackjobs, hence the BS idea that it is a "myth."