I don’t know about you, but I’m becoming heartily sick of being told the obvious nonsense that “myths” are just as valid an approach to the truth as science, just different. No they aren’t. If there were a better way of getting to the truth, science would adopt it.
-
-
I love Hamlet for its truth value!
-
Hamlet is not true. It's a story. If it were to be a true account, it would be a report of some monarch who was mentally disabled and look like a police report. He'd be much less interesting and definitely not speak in beautifully crafted iambic pentameter.
-
You love Hamlet for its beauty and meaning. This is different to truth. It is so easy to say 'This is a beautifully moving play about something which didn't happen.' Don't have to claim it to be a true story.
-
Let’s jump off Hamlet (cos it’s a “narrative”) and move back to Beethoven/Coltrane/ insert favourite composer. What’s your argument here? Is music just melody, rhythm and harmony? Do I love it for its beauty and meaning? Does it therefore contain no “truths’?
-
Please answer Helen if u can. It bugs the shit out of me. And I’m also serious about the question I raised earlier. As an atheist, who believes that there is Truth in Art as well as in Science, does that, by definition, make me a Post Modernist?
-
No. This belief is also found in other forms of philosophy, theology & metaphysics particularly but a failure to distinguish was is from what feels meaningful is actually our default position. Going on evidence & reason is counterintuitive.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
The essay of mine that I linked cites many sources that it is counterintuitive. The Enlightenment is when it became the norm to expect evidence and reasoned argument for truth claims. Before that, truth was understood to come largely from revelation.
- 1 more reply
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.