Questions of how to live, and questions of taste, are not just subjective. Opposing the subjective and the objective is a philosophical mistake. Myths and narratives are meaningful precisely because they involve questions that exceed subjectivity.
Some things people place meaning on are not true, yes. Thunder is not actually an angry god swinging a hammer about. The meaning given to it is false. People can still take pleasure in imagining it and perhaps it could even be useful but it is not true.
-
-
People can place meaning on absolutely anything. This can be interesting and I study narratives because it is interesting. It also matters what is true and distinguishing what people find meaningful regardless of truth from what has been discovered to be true has advanced society
-
I'm not arguing against truth. I'm saying that if tribe members argue about whether a plant makes you sick, and they argue in terms of that myth, they aren't arguing about whether the myth is meaningful but about whether it is true: that the right way to live is not to eat it.
-
OK? So what? Where is this going? If you mean that sometimes people can find information and data in myths, I agree and have never claimed otherwise. This is not the point of the disagreement.
-
Maybe a myth mentions that a certain war happened in a certain place and archaeologists use this as a starting point for seeking evidence for it. This is not what is being criticised as 'the affective reality of the mythic world,' is it?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.