Myths in the Making ...

[Mercutio]

I think this thread has potential, if we can stick to Cleo's contributions and ignore Iacchus's tantrum.

Huh-oh. I forgot that and you know it interests me tremendously. The reason why I am so captivated by this question is that I don't believe that ancient people that they " didn't know that well" ( allow me to play with the Greek word for Science that means the solid knowledge,something that has been proven right) or at least as " well as we know certain things" had in all wrong. I mean they have captured something.

It does not take a system of observation (like science) to make good observations--although it helps, and it guards against biases. Whether using astrology as an agricultural aid (as a stellar calendar, basically) or using mythology as a psychological aid (an explanation of human nature, helping us to see consistencies in behavior), a system of knowledge does not have to be perfect to be helpful.

Anyway, I have studided Law and Humanities and some people expressed their disappointment for my trying to learn more about Mathematics and Science. Funny because I find a lot of poetry in both. That's why I am very much interested in every discussion that brings Science and Mythology together. I don't see the dichotomy and I believe that if people believe that there is any relation between them we would have a Myth about a certain lady that was called Science, probably was seduced with Zeus or was raped by Zeus and Athena (---->in the form of Metis) together and gave birth to her her kids,mathematics, physics, astronomy etc.

You know far more about these Myths than I do, but I do not recall any close connections to this bastard child Science--I would have thought some connection to Athena, but Wisdom was not, I guess, the same thing as scientific knowledge. Even the muses...the closest to science was Urania!

This is what I am trying to explain to Iacchus.You cannot just make reference to mythology without demonstrating with clarity the link you see along with your interpretation. Mythology is not just fairy tales.

So, Iacchus, unless you use the word " mythology" rhetorically if you believe that Science is part of human's mythology you have 1. To show us the link and 2. Provide an explanation.

I would not hold my breath.

 

[Jesus]

I was just about to. I was going to ask you find the need to be so "anal?"

Yes, but what does your spirit tell you?

It tells me nothing, because it doesn't exist, unless you can provide some good evidence for this "spirit" thing that I can check out.

 

[Iacchus]

It tells me nothing, because it doesn't exist, unless you can provide some good evidence for this "spirit" thing that I can check out.

Whether I can provide the evidence or not has nothing to do with it. I can to myself by the way.

 

[Iacchus]

I think this thread has potential, if we can stick to Cleo's contributions and ignore Iacchus's tantrum.

Hardy har har to you too.

You know far more about these Myths than I do, but I do not recall any close connections to this bastard child Science--I would have thought some connection to Athena, but Wisdom was not, I guess, the same thing as scientific knowledge. Even the muses...the closest to science was Urania!

No, I'm thinking Apollo. However, albeit both he and I are brothers -- of sorts -- he's a bit too "anal" for me.

 

[Iacchus]

We have our minds, and we have our senses. Why you refuse to use them is a large part of the problem.

The fact is, I don't deny these things. Am just trying to keep things in perspective.

 

[Jesus]

Whether I can provide the evidence or not has nothing to do with it. I can to myself by the way.

Yes, it does, or your question about what my "spirit" tells me is completely meaningless.

 

[Mercutio]

Hardy har har to you too.

No, I'm thinking Apollo. However, albeit both he and I are brothers -- of sorts -- he's a bit too "anal" for me.

Could you elaborate on why you think Apollo might fit the bill as the mythic god of science? I can't see it, myself. I don't see anything there to support your contention that science is a myth. Support it, or withdraw it. Or do what you always do and try to obfuscate.

 

[Darat]

Could you elaborate on why you think Apollo might fit the bill as the mythic god of science? I can't see it, myself. I don't see anything there to support your contention that science is a myth. Support it, or withdraw it. Or do what you always do and try to obfuscate.

Perhaps a way forward?

Iacchus, can you please provide the definition of "myth" and "science" as you are using them in this thread otherwsie we may all end up talking at cross-purposes because of a mis-understanding.

 

[Iacchus]

Could you elaborate on why you think Apollo might fit the bill as the mythic god of science? I can't see it, myself. I don't see anything there to support your contention that science is a myth. Support it, or withdraw it. Or do what you always do and try to obfuscate.

Well, quite often the difference between Apollo and Dionysus is portrayed as the difference between the rational and the irrational. Shouldn't that give you a clue?

 

[Mercutio]

Well, quite often the difference between Apollo and Dionsysus is portrayed as the difference between the rational and the irrational. Shouldn't that give you a clue?

Perhaps then, you should start by doing what Darat suggested. There are many things which are "rational" but are not science. Logical proofs need not have any empirical component at all, but simply proceed from premises to conclusions.

So, no Science in Apollo still. But at least your misunderstanding is becoming more clear.

 

[Iacchus]

Nietzsche, Dionysus and Apollo ...

Apollonian and Dionysian are terms used by Nietzsche in The Birth of Tragedy to designate the two central principles in Greek culture. The Apollonian, which corresponds to Schopenhauer's principium individuationis ("principle of individuation"), is the basis of all analytic distinctions. Everything that is part of the unique individuality of man or thing is Apollonian in character; all types of form or structure are Apollonian, since form serves to define or individualize that which is formed; thus, sculpture is the most Apollonian of the arts, since it relies entirely on form for its effect. Rational thought is also Apollonian since it is structured and makes distinctions.

This is just one link, of which I'm sure there are many.

 

[Mercutio]

In case you missed it--

Perhaps a way forward?

Iacchus, can you please provide the definition of "myth" and "science" as you are using them in this thread otherwsie we may all end up talking at cross-purposes because of a mis-understanding.

 

[Iacchus]

Perhaps then, you should start by doing what Darat suggested. There are many things which are "rational" but are not science. Logical proofs need not have any empirical component at all, but simply proceed from premises to conclusions.

So, no Science in Apollo still. But at least your misunderstanding is becoming more clear.

Yet "rational thought" exists at the basis of everything we term scientific.

 

[Iacchus]

In case you missed it--

And in case you've missed any of my other posts, I'm saying reality itself is "a myth." In which case what difference does it make whether we call it science or, whatever? ...

 

[Mercutio]

Yet "rational thought" exists at the basis of everything we term scientific.

Iacchus, you have a tendency to widen your definitions to the point where they are completely useless. By this broad definition, there is no distinction between rationalism and empiricism, for instance.

Please, do what Darat requested. Perhaps the misunderstanding is merely the result of what definitions you are using for Myth and for Science.

 

[Mercutio]

And in case you've missed any of my other posts, I'm saying reality itself is "a myth." In which case what difference does it make whether we call it science or whatever ...

Ok, now what definition are you using for "myth"? I think you are trying simply to say that reality is a fiction, or perhaps an illusion (and not at all a Myth). But unless you use the proper words, I cannot tell.

 

[Iacchus]

Iacchus, you have a tendency to widen your definitions to the point where they are completely useless. By this broad definition, there is no distinction between rationalism and empiricism, for instance.

Is there something wrong with saying rationalism is the basis for science? I really don't get it?

Please, do what Darat requested. Perhaps the misunderstanding is merely the result of what definitions you are using for Myth and for Science.

And perhaps all I'm saying, is the whole thing is all in our heads. In which case how do you differentiate between that which is factual and that which is myth? The thing is you can't. Which is why I equate science with myth and myth (potentially) with science.

 

[Iacchus]

Oh, and in case you don't realize it, I have every reason to believe that the Gods and Mt. Olympus were real.

 

[Mercutio]

Is there something wrong with saying rationalism is the basis for science? I really don't get it?

The only thing wrong with it is that it is untrue. The rationalism/empiricism split saw science rise from empiricism, not from rationalism.

And perhaps all I'm saying, is the whole thing is all in our heads. In which case how do you differentiate between that which is factual and that which is myth? The thing is you can't. Which is why I equate science with myth and myth (potentially) with science.

The bottom line is that you misuse the word "Myth"; you are using it when others would use "fiction" or "illusion". Note that you oppose it to "factual" in this post. Because of the other definitions of the word "Myth", it is a poor choice for you to use in this argument.

 

[Mercutio]

Oh, and in case you don't realize it, I have every reason to believe that the Gods and Mt. Olympus were real.

I am sure you do.