Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Sepulchrave II" data-source="post: 251004" data-attributes="member: 4303">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 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. 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. 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. For that, let us be truly thankful<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> (Well, for Episodes IV-VI, at least...)Sorry, Agback. END HIJACK.</blockquote>

Verification