Reality vs myth
- Thread starter DLegend
- Start date
Libros
Member
Well that's an archaeological site with verifiable historical evidence, but even the events of the myth surrounding it have been disputed even since ancient times. Thucydides was one of the ancient world's best critical historians and posited some of the events of the Trojan War as exaggeration. Helen's face that launched a thousand ships, for example, he doubted that a thousand ships were needed to lead a siege against Troy. We know that the Iliad is a poem anyway, and is prone to colourful embellishment by its author and reintrepretation by future poets.
I don't know if DLegend is thinking of more abstract myth details like thunder being caused by Zeus, or Odin being hung on the World Tree to gain wisdom, etc. There are often comparable interpretations for what such myths may be describing, but not having lived in their time, when myth was considered fact, we'll never know exactly what they were thinking. Our modern view of myth automatically creates bias.
I don't know if DLegend is thinking of more abstract myth details like thunder being caused by Zeus, or Odin being hung on the World Tree to gain wisdom, etc. There are often comparable interpretations for what such myths may be describing, but not having lived in their time, when myth was considered fact, we'll never know exactly what they were thinking. Our modern view of myth automatically creates bias.
Libros
Member
Noah's ark was claimed to have been found dozens of times over the centuries. Old rotted wood found on Mt. Ararat has almost always been from Noah's Ark, whether believed true or planted as hoax.
Today modern "discoveries" of a structure believed to be the Ark are mostly made by teams of Biblical researchers who refuse to turn their evidence over to third parties for analysis. The most recent one in 2010 was by Noah's Ark Ministries International, a team of Christians who are not archaeologists or geologists and have relied entirely on the Bible to substantiate their claims. They claim the carbon dated wood is over 4000 years old but no neutral parties have been allowed access to test it for themselves. So it's their non-expert and biased claims the news has gone with.
Libros
Member
The implications are the same as the original question. A group may hold a piece of evidence that proves or disproves a point. However, they refuse to let the evidence be examined by any other perception than their own. They will not offer it to be objectively tested by other parties. The reasons for this may be such things as fear of being disproven, lack of faith in the party's instruments or skills, etc, doubt in the party's objectivity, etc.
Thus, their view of the evidence cannot be contested, and they are safely nested in their truth. What is regarded as myth by one group may be truth for another, and both groups remain at an impasse because no further progress can be made.
Thus, their view of the evidence cannot be contested, and they are safely nested in their truth. What is regarded as myth by one group may be truth for another, and both groups remain at an impasse because no further progress can be made.
Libros
Member
Or that fake rubber Bigfoot that was photographed in the bin a year or so ago. It was all "the discoverers claim that..." and for a while all the world saw were those few photos they had given to the press. They selectively kept others away in order to conceal their lie, but gave just enough information to cause people to discuss its viability. Since it was the internet, word spread rapidly based on just a few photos taken by the discoverers.
And then actual scientists began demanding they submit the body for testing, and within an hour that someone objective got within range of the bin it was identified as a hoax and they were forced to confess.
And then actual scientists began demanding they submit the body for testing, and within an hour that someone objective got within range of the bin it was identified as a hoax and they were forced to confess.
NothingToFear
New Member
It's similar to the Turin Shroud. For years it was held up as being Jesus' shroud. Carbon dating proved it to probably have been a work of art of Leonardo De Vinci.
Urban legends can be proved or disproved. True myths are more like creation stories, or other ways of fathoming the world that we live in, from an age when people could not understand the world. It was too confusing, and there was no one to teach them, for the knowledge had first to be discovered. These myths could not be proved or disproved because really, there is nothing to test.
Urban legends can be proved or disproved. True myths are more like creation stories, or other ways of fathoming the world that we live in, from an age when people could not understand the world. It was too confusing, and there was no one to teach them, for the knowledge had first to be discovered. These myths could not be proved or disproved because really, there is nothing to test.
Libros
Member
And it's not just myth busters either; as history progresses, the cultures themselves develop different attitudes to what once were myths.
Take the annual flooding of the ancient Nile. When Sopdet, Sirius the Dog Star rose in July, the Egyptians knew the Nile was due to flood soon, so based their crop season on that cycle. They equated the star with Sopdet, and the flooding as the tears Aset shed when Set killed Wesir. Wesir, as the god of vegetation as well as the afterlife, died and was reborn in the grain every year, so Sopdet would rise and Aset would continue to cry, to bring life to the people.
Centuries later, the Suez Canal was built to manually control the Nile flooding whenever desired, to better serve Egypt's larger population. The symbolic cycle of the Egyptian myth was permanently broken, and the rising of Sirius was no longer consequential. People could have good soil for food year round. Egypt is a Muslim country, but I've never heard an Egyptian say that Allah's will determines the crop season.
Is there still truth to the myth after the culture progresses beyond what it represents? That's an individual's decision. The myth was a popular truth for some time, but you can now see it as a lie, or another version of the truth, or something in between.
Take the annual flooding of the ancient Nile. When Sopdet, Sirius the Dog Star rose in July, the Egyptians knew the Nile was due to flood soon, so based their crop season on that cycle. They equated the star with Sopdet, and the flooding as the tears Aset shed when Set killed Wesir. Wesir, as the god of vegetation as well as the afterlife, died and was reborn in the grain every year, so Sopdet would rise and Aset would continue to cry, to bring life to the people.
Centuries later, the Suez Canal was built to manually control the Nile flooding whenever desired, to better serve Egypt's larger population. The symbolic cycle of the Egyptian myth was permanently broken, and the rising of Sirius was no longer consequential. People could have good soil for food year round. Egypt is a Muslim country, but I've never heard an Egyptian say that Allah's will determines the crop season.
Is there still truth to the myth after the culture progresses beyond what it represents? That's an individual's decision. The myth was a popular truth for some time, but you can now see it as a lie, or another version of the truth, or something in between.