Is all history mythology?

[Sleeping in EQ]

Great stuff. Some of you are touching on my beloved Benjamin.

SU and I have been down this road before, but I'm a firm believer in J.S. Mill's postulate that the presence of error empowers truth. It's not that we shouldn't try to differentiate the one from the other, but that we should have enough humility to let them play out. The certainty of "I know" testimonies and corrleated manuals would put itself above "error," alternative voices in democracy, and the serious investigation of the relation of historical artifacts to myths (a subject I love). Hagiography loathes the stone rejected by the builders, but nonetheless risks revealing it.

Had I read through this thread I would have just posted this here.

Linkage:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...2497#post82497

[BarbaraGordon]

To return to Seattle's original question...

There may be those that use the "history as mythology" argument to further claims of the historical validity of scripture. That should not detract from the veracity of the "history of mythology" argument in itself.

There is a strong element of mythology in any people's history. Some players will be deified, others vilified, lesser players are forgotten altogether. Fatal flaws and heroic traits are emphasized, while complex details are lost to time.

I think in some respects this is due to some emotional need we have for these elements. But in another respect, I think it's merely the result of our need to try to make logical sense of the often illogical progression of human events. It's simply easier to understand our history if we can string it together in terms of cause and effect, good and evil; even if it means that to some extent we're creating our own myth.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Sleeping in EQ

Great stuff. Some of you are touching on my beloved Benjamin.

SU and I have been down this road before, but I'm a firm believer in J.S. Mill's postulate that the presence of error empowers truth. It's not that we shouldn't try to differentiate the one from the other, but that we should have enough humility to let them play out. The certainty of "I know" testimonies and corrleated manuals would put itself above "error," alternative voices in democracy, and the serious investigation of the relation of historical artifacts to myths (a subject I love). Hagiography loathes the stone rejected by the builders, but nonetheless risks revealing it.

Had I read through this thread I would have just posted this here.

Linkage:

http://cougarguard.com/forum/showthr...2497#post82497

Thanks SEIQ. I plan to read this a little later when I get more time. Then I'll comment on it.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by BarbaraGordon

To return to Seattle's original question...

There may be those that use the "history as mythology" argument to further claims of the historical validity of scripture. That should not detract from the veracity of the "history of mythology" argument in itself.

There is a strong element of mythology in any people's history. Some players will be deified, others vilified, lesser players are forgotten altogether. Fatal flaws and heroic traits are emphasized, while complex details are lost to time.

I think in some respects this is due to some emotional need we have for these elements. But in another respect, I think it's merely the result of our need to try to make logical sense of the often illogical progression of human events. It's simply easier to understand our history if we can string it together in terms of cause and effect, good and evil; even if it means that to some extent we're creating our own myth.

Well stated. This makes me think of Tolstoy's argument against Carlye's great man theory, which seemingly depends upon our mythologized past. But there may be even more going on than what you say as we spin our myths. I'm kind of a romantic at heart. Probably because of my Mormon roots.