Fantasy gods, religion, and philosophy

[Nathal]

Just as an aside...

All serious scholars of religion take Campbell with a large pinch of salt.

The battle line is often drawn between the particularists and the universalists in their approaches to religion and myth (see Robert Segal's Joseph Campbell: An Introduction). I prefer to think of Campbell as a wonderful poetic thinker, rather than dispenser of "facts". He is better considered a professor of literature than of religion, strictly speaking, his theories sometimes suffering from "observational selection"...grafting bits and pieces of world myth onto his preexisting pseudo-Jungian framework.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Originally posted by Agback:

Originally posted by Kamikaze Midget:
I mean, the Greeks basically had a pantheon of gods widely recognized as imperfect and flawed.

I'm not sure that they did. Plato, Epictetus and others decried the 'silly stories told about the gods' on the grounds that they held the gods to be perfect and unflawed.

Originally posted by Kamikaze Midget:
As far as I know, religion still remained the norm in Greece, even after the advent of the philosophers (though a few educated rich snobs did differ).

So, y'see, even after some scholars pointed out that omnipotent (or nearly) beings should also be omnibenevolent (or nearly), the concept wasn't widely accepted.

So some rich snobbery philosophers decided they could make better gods than the rest of the peons. The peons didn't really change much of their lives or beliefs, though. Plato's sayin' that gods have to be totally good and not do anything morally questionable? He's missing the point. Why can't they be a bit less than pure? Plus, I hear there's a plot of land with his name on it when certain people find out he doesn't think highly of them.

Of course, to my knowledge, I've never read Campell, and I have know idea what a particularist or an universalist or a jungian is.

All I know is that gods don't have to be pure beings of holiness in order to command worship. A knowledge of lots of myths and religions, though barely officiated, is enough to tell me that.

 

[Furn_Darkside]

Salutations

I expect that people would not consider them holy. And so people might treat them as merely superhumanly powerful neighbours. If such a god gave down a moral code in a set of commandments, people would say "Why should we obey these? His omnipotence doesn't make him right!" People would ask 'but is he a good and wise god?', just the way they ask about a philosopher.

I think it depends largely on the people- if you are talking about a well educated people who don't worry about daily survival, then you may be right.

You may also be wrong- if these superhumanly powerful neighbours are capable of eradicating cities and are immortal- then you will find people bowing to their "wisdom."

However, if you are talking about uneducated people who have to worry daily about life/death issues (starvation, thirst, wild animals, plague, etc.)- then I suspect they would just be willing to do whatever will please the gods and keep their mercy.

Further, they often communicate social standards more or less subliminally.

I don't think that is true. You have a great many cultures out there that have quite different social standards.

But suppose that a god had other plans, and made its requirements known. Would not people construct secular ceremonies to meet their social needs?

This I would agree with, but I think it would still revolve around the gods.

for example: Say the gods only wanted the people to build giant temples through out the land- and cared for little else. You would likely find the temples the location for marriages and coming-of-age ceremonies.

We are used to religion being a tight bundle of gods, myths, ceremonies, and ethics. But it need not be so. And there are reasons to believe that real fantasy-type gods might cause the bundle to come apart.

I think you are either overestimating people living in a dangerous world or underestimating vengeful and irritable gods. I have trouble believing people, as a society, are going to question or rebuke an immortal being capable of killing them.. or doing much worse.

Respectfully submitted
FD

 

[Samnell]

The battle line is often drawn between the particularists and the universalists in their approaches to religion and myth (see Robert Segal's Joseph Campbell: An Introduction). I prefer to think of Campbell as a wonderful poetic thinker, rather than dispenser of "facts". He is better considered a professor of literature than of religion, strictly speaking, his theories sometimes suffering from "observational selection"...grafting bits and pieces of world myth onto his preexisting pseudo-Jungian framework.

Thanks for the reference. I dug up an editorial where Segal explained himself and what was going on.

 

[Desdichado]

Yeah, Agback, it's true. After all, those stories we have of the god's various hijinks weren't written after the fact: Homer et al. were current Greek populist authors (or whatever you call an oral poet.)

 

[FDP Mike]

Campbell's not so bad!

Just as an aside...

Joseph Campbell = debunked Jungian crank.


All serious scholars of religion take Campbell with a large pinch of salt.

I am consistently amazed by the godlike reverance with which this man is regarded on these boards, as if he held the final word in the analysis of myth.

Well, Campbell did inspire the great modern mythical epic: STAR WARS!

Still, that "serious scholars of religion" treat Campbell as barely worthy of "scholarly" respect has always irked me. In fact, this is a problem somewhat plaguing academics these days, but that's, like, a whole other thread (and message board?) . . . .

True, Campbell wrote some very accessible and perhaps in some respects simplified work on mythology. This, I feel, is where "scholars" often fail: an inability actually to reach people on a wide basis and communicate significant, even complicated ideas in such a way that they make sense and have appeal. All academics/scholars/researchers ultimately suffer from "observational selection": partly, that's human nature; partly, that's simply what's done to establish and prove a thesis. Campbell is no worse than others in this regard.

Campbell, lest we forget, was a thorough scholar in his own right. His 4-book Creative Mythology series is not all "easy" and "debunkable" stuff. It's quite dense in places. If anything, the man was a teacher, and we do have him to thank for Star Wars . . . as well as, for instance, a deeper understanding of Joyce. The charge against Campbell's "universalism" comes from a post-modern distrust of universals -- a distrust that is no more correct or better and is often sort of entropic.

I think, if someone like Campbell can get a message out that makes people think more about the human condition, then he's done something right and good. What Campbell did give us was a sense of how to connect mythology -- i.e., let's say, stories of the gods (and heroes) and their actions -- to our daily lives, primarily because he saw that we were losing a sense of the role mythology played (to be on topic here?) in the building of society, the reinforcement of societal values, the perpetuation of certain ideas and themes.

Any "debunking" of Campbell comes from what amounts to a small circle of more "scientifically" minded scholars who are ultimately (to take from Sir Philip Sydney's comments on philosophers) talking just to each other. This situation is also very much why Carl Jung still today plays second fiddle to the more "scientific" Freud . . . .

[Phew! Had to get that off my chest for some reason. ]


As for Agback's original musings, I think that the Scarred Lands setting is somewhat indicative of what happens when gods have "cause[d] the bundle to come apart" -- well, at least, the Titans did so, and the tensions between some of the gods threaten stability. Yes, look to the Scarred Lands for a setting in which the gods are very present. Certainly no laziness there! Then again, perhaps I'm misinterpreting the direction of Agback's thoughts . . . .

 

[Sepulchrave II]

The battle line is often drawn between the particularists and the universalists in their approaches to religion and myth

This is true. But within academia generally, and specifically within the study of comparative religion, there has been an inexorable movement away from Univeralism within the last generation or so. This is part of the zeitgeist which stresses difference over similarity, and to that extent is no more laudable than universalism itself. But the fact remains that so many of Campbells assertions are based upon disproven anthropological theories, that it is hard to see how they hold water.

For example, in "Primitive Mythology," many of Campbells stem from the idea of a "zone of homogenization" which stretched from central central Africa to the Arabian peninsula - an anthropological theory which is no longer commonly subscribed to.

I prefer to think of Campbell as a wonderful poetic thinker, rather than dispenser of "facts". He is better considered a professor of literature than of religion, strictly speaking, his theories sometimes suffering from "observational selection"...grafting bits and pieces of world myth onto his preexisting pseudo-Jungian framework

I think this hits the mark. Campbell is a great poet, and you really want to believe him, because he stresses all of those things which point to a commonality in the human condition. As I say, I myself am a 'Jungian crank,' and a universalist to boot, but I would never claim that my ideas could be substantiated intellectually. They are more a question of faith/belief for me.

Any "debunking" of Campbell comes from what amounts to a small circle of more "scientifically" minded scholars

This is not the case, at least not in Europe (I can't speak as confidently about the US). Many scholars regard Campbell fondly, but would not cite him as an authority in any matter. Campbell's speculative genius was immense - I don't deny that. But Campbell he was a product of his time - a time when humanistic psychology, in its various forms (including Jung, but also Maslow, Assagioli etc.) informed academic pursuit. The nature of these psychologies is fundamentally anti-scientific - they emphasise introspection, connection and personal exploration. And universalism in the human condition. Like I say, this is fine, but it is a matter of belief rather than fact.

Campbell, lest we forget, was a thorough scholar in his own right. His 4-book Creative Mythology series is not all "easy" and "debunkable" stuff.

This is the series that I have the biggest problem with - largely because of the anthropological theories that he draws upon (see above). And his labelling of Egyptian myth as "Oriental," - in order to support his larger theories of mythological type - has always struck me as an all-too convenient argument.

Well, Campbell did inspire the great modern mythical epic: STAR WARS!

For that, let us be truly thankful

(Well, for Episodes IV-VI, at least...)


Sorry, Agback. END HIJACK.

 

[Agback]

Re: Re: Fantasy gods, religion, and philosophy

I think you are either overestimating people living in a dangerous world or underestimating vengeful and irritable gods. I have trouble believing people, as a society, are going to question or rebuke an immortal being capable of killing them.. or doing much worse.

I understand your point. But people living on the edge of disaster have resisted, for instance, Saddam Hussein, Hitler, Idi Amin, the British Empire, Heliogabalus... at the risk of their lives and their family's lives. I have friends (well, a friend now) who used to be active in the Dutch Resistance, and they were/he is just [an] ordinary guys/guy: a bit brighter than most, but showing no signs of the incredible courage he must have had. I find it hard to really accept, deep down, that people have that courage. But they did.

Even supposing that people do not resist a powerful but manifestly corrupt supernatural neighbour. Menaces can make people obey, but I don't think they can make people believe or trust. Or, for that matter, love. A sufficiently powerful god might be able to intimidate and bully his neighbours into obeying his commandments, but without a moral dimension she/he/it won't be loved, and her/his/its commandments might not be accepted as a moral code.

Regards,


Agback

 

[Agback]

Re: Campbell's not so bad!

Any "debunking" of Campbell comes from what amounts to a small circle of more "scientifically" minded scholars who are ultimately (to take from Sir Philip Sydney's comments on philosophers) talking just to each other. This situation is also very much why Carl Jung still today plays second fiddle to the more "scientific" Freud . . . .

Whereas Freud is getting debunked by actual scientists.

Regards,


Agback

 

[2WS-Steve]

I'm with you on this Agback; just because someone is powerful doesn't mean I'd worship him. Really, what's the difference between Atlas and the Incredible Hulk? Longer lifespan? For that matter Bill Gates is probably *more* powerful than the Incredible Hulk. It just seems to me that the relationship between a follower and Zeus would have more in common with the relationship between a soldier and drill sergeant than with our modern conception of religion. Thus, I've never been really satisfied with the handling of clerics in the game. I'd rather just use the Force, or do something akin to the way FFG handled the pantheon in Dragonstar.