spin

I think it can be seen from the recent poll on the significance of the term "myth" that there is utter conflict over what it means. What this means is that people are talking to each other and not understanding what is being said on the subject of myth because each is perceiving a different meaning each time it is used.

One of the goals we should have here is to be able to communicate in such a way as to be understood by all regular readers of the forum. This cannot be achieved in the specific instance while we continue to use "myth" with conflicting meanings. This leads me to ask if we could refrain from using the term--at least with such regularity--and use substitutes that are more expressive in their meaning.

Fictional
Those who think that "myth" is a fictional representation purporting to be a past event, might use "fictional" instead of "mythical".

Theological
Those who think that it is a narrative whose purpose is to portray religious ideas, might use "theological".

Unrealistic
Others might find other ways of expressing what they mean rather than use "myth", which for many is simply some form of "not real". They might even use "unrealistic". And a host of other options.

By continuing to use "myth" as we do, there will continue to be unnecessary conflict in which people often talk past each other.

Isn't it worth a shot?




spin

spin

Here's a little something for forum members to use:



[hr=1]100[/hr]
Just right-click on this image and copy the image location, then you can paste it as an image!


spin

Clivedurdle

Haven't you missed out the accepted definition of myth, which is around a way to convey ideas about how the world or a specific bit of it works or came into being?

It is a different way of looking at something, a different vector, like complex numbers, the equivalent of a different number line.

Defining myth in terms of theology, fiction, unrealistic is missing the point.




In many ways this is the point of psychotherapeutic thinking.

The problem is myth is often packaged with supernatural when actually it is an emergent property of how we try and make sense of life the universe and everything.

The idea of christ saving the world is not theological in these terms, calling it theological packages it as a religious idea and is like assuming a dead butterfly pinned in a collection represents a living butterfly and its ecosystem.

This is about dreams - a new heaven and a new earth - and is thus political and psychological.

Without a dream the people perish. Man does not live by bread alone.

DNAReplicator

I concur with your irritation over the use of the term 'myth' around these parts. However, I am not clear how I would categorise my own thoughts on the matter using your suggested revised terminology.

What term would you suggest for those who think early christian writings

1. contain no recoverable reliable historical information about an individual,

2. are mostly comprised of 'fiction' (as you define it), but written for theological reasons,

3. and yet still think that, on balance, the more probable explanation for the beginning of the cult that became Christianity is that there was a real person called Jesus about whom these stories were attributed to?

Perhaps a 'Popeyeist' (after the Popeye analogy)?

spin

I mightn't agree with you over the above, but you've done a fair job of communicating your ideas without using "myth" once in the expression of them. I don't think one can hope for a single word to cover all of your points and trying to cramp them into a single word, a word that has too much baggage to start with, will--I think--tend not to be able to hold those ideas.

I had to look up the "Popeye analogy" and the only thing I can think of is that you must be Catholic because you're messy--I mean, your working theory is messy, or at least that might be related to how you're referring to the "Popeye analogy".

:thinking:


spin

No Robots

This is a good attempt to help discussion improve around here. I would be happy to affirm the fundamental realism of the NT. By that I mean that the documents provide a largely realist portrayal of the central figure. Even many of the unreal aspects of this portrayal are attempts to convey insight into his real qualities. Now, a realist portrayal could at the same time be fictional. But I would argue that the context of these documents rules out that possibility. Thus, I would maintain that the NT documents are by-and-large realist non-fiction. It would be important, though, to keep in mind that they do contain fabulation that results from their essentially naive origins.

aa5874

There is one word to cover what you have said, "MYTH".

Now, it would be interesting to find out what "historical" means to you.

funinspace

In a single word... INCONCEIVABLE

Though I rarely use the word "myth" and even more rarely done w/o context

aa5874

By what means can you maintain that "the NT documents are by-and-large realist non-fiction"?

Not even HJers use such an argument, perhaps fundamentalists.

DNAReplicator

Actually, I meant that Popeye, Olive Oyl and Wimpy were based on real people with similar characater traits and physical appearance.

But I don't think there is much recoverable history in Popeye.