The Essence of Myth
- PDF / 547,224 Bytes
- 15 Pages / 439.37 x 666.142 pts Page_size
- 85 Downloads / 238 Views
The Essence of Myth Jon Mills1 Received: 18 November 2018 / Accepted: 18 February 2020 © ICPR 2020
Abstract Myth has a convoluted etymological history in terms of its origins, meanings, and functions. Throughout this essay, I explore the signification, structure, and essence of myth in terms of its source, force, form, object, and teleology derived from archaic ontology. Here, I offer a theoretic typology of myth by engaging the work of contemporary scholar, Robert A. Segal, who places fine distinctions on criteria of explanation versus interpretation when theorizing about myth historically derived from methodologies employed in analytic philosophy and the philosophy of science. Through my analysis of an explanandum and an explanans, I argue that both interpretation and explanation are acts of explication that signify the ontological significance, truth, and psychic reality of myth in both individuals and social collectives. I conclude that, in essence, myth is a form of inner sense. Keywords Myth · Essence · Discourse · Explanation · Interpretation · Robert A. Segal The term “myth” is derived from the Greek muthos (μῦθος), meaning word, speech.1 The term was used frequently by Homer (see Odyssey II.561; Iliad 9.443; 19.242) and other ancient poets, especially referring to the mere word. It is also referred to as public speech (Odyssey, I.358) as well as conversation. When combined with the word logos (λόγος), such as in the compound muthologia (μυθολογίαa), myth becomes a discourse on narrative. Myth as word, speech, discourse generically refers to the thing said, as fact, or matter at hand, as well as the thing thought, the unspoken word, revealing its purpose or design. This may be why the migration 1 Initiated in the nineteenth century, and now in its 9th revised edition, Liddell and Scott’s Greek-English Lexicon is generally considered among classicists to be the finest compilation to date of the classical works of antiquity where the etymological sources of ancient words derive and correspond to contemporary linguistics and modes of discourse. All references to μῦθος begin on p. 1151, Vol. 2.
* Jon Mills [email protected] 1
Adelphi University, New York, USA
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Journal of Indian Council of Philosophical Research
of the term was closely associated with the process of thinking itself: i.e., in Old Slavic, mysle is equated with thought, as is smūainim in Old Irish, hence I think, perhaps derived from the Indo-European mudh-, to think, to imagine. When Heidegger (1927) discusses the concept of logos and truth (ἀλήθεια), he tells us that “discourse” as logos “lets something be seen” by making it manifest and accessible to another party (§ 7, B). Like muthos, logos is a convoluted concept that has acquired many different meanings throughout the history of philosophy. Λόγος is customarily translated as “reason,” “meaning,” “judgment,” “intelligence,” “concept,” “word,” “definition,” “assertion,” “ground,” and “relationship,” which means it always succumbs to interpretation. H
Data Loading...
