From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Well, yes, but maybe if we could read the Norse sagas or Greek myths in the original manuscripts they would be more meaningful. All sorts of errors could have slipped into them with subsequent translations which make our modern versions less useful.--Bobbing up and down 15:51, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Or better yet, sat around the fire and actually hear them being made up! Does the Koran have any extant originals? humanbe in 15:58, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
No, I think the oldest MS is from around the mid-eight century. --AKjeldsenGodspeed! 16:07, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
Darn. Well, at least we know who wrote Shakespeare's plays & c. .... humanbe in 19:02, 5 September 2007 (CDT)
Francis Bacon, right? :) --Gulik 20:51, 5 September 2007 (CDT)

Study of mythology[edit]

A recent addition by WaitingforGodot is subjective and speculative enough that I believe it merits removal into an essay. It don't feel it belongs in the article, at least not in its current form. Star of David.png Radioactive afikomen Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments. 20:23, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

.yldas ,noinipo %001 tub ,gnikovorp-hguohT .eerga I
I disagree. If anything, the edit made the article less subjective. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 20:36, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
 ?ew llahs ,erehwesle tib "ygolohtym fo yduts" eht evom dna noitces dael wen eht peek s'teL .noitaluceps hcus rof ecalp eht t'nsi llits siht tuB .eerga I ,ytsan saw noisrev tsrif ehT
I have reviewed the edit in question and found nothing that is incompatible with current research on the subject. No specific errors have been identified. Thanks and goatspeed. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 20:44, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
 !drawoC ?uoy t'ndid ,noitasrevnoc siht trats ot nwod edispu m'I nehw tnemom eht rof detiaw uoY
If it's any consolation, it's almost as difficult to read as I imagine it is to write. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 20:49, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
.ti dnuor daeh ruoy teg uoy ecno etirw ot ysae etiuq yllautca s'tI .haN
That just means it must be an even greater consolation, then. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 21:11, 14 July 2008 (EDT)
The information is correct as far as modern scholarship on the study of mythology as taught at UC Santa Barbara, and Harvard. But the writing style may leave much to be desired. I'll work on it.--WaitingforGodot 22:25, 14 July 2008 (EDT)

Appleseed et al.[edit]

The paragraph at the end that was removed is relevant because it shows that the creation of myths is something common to all sorts of social groups, rather than just limited to religions. I think it should be put back. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 05:22, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Popular and academic meanings[edit]

It seems to me that this is one of those words which has both a popular meaning - something untrue, as in "urban myth" and a more academic meaning which is presently in the article. In this case it may be similar to words like Theory which suffer from the same problem.--Bobbing up 06:32, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Yes, indeed - although an urban myth is also a "myth" in the academic sense. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 07:47, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
Yes, to be honest, I hadn't thought of that Scratchchin.gif.--Bobbing up 08:47, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
On second thought, it would probably be better to say that some urban myths are also academic myths. Others are probably better classified as folktales or something similar. I'm not so good at the definitions of the various categories. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 09:04, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
I'm not sure "anyone" is so good at the definitions of the various categories.  :-) Indiana has a "folklore" department headed by a "guru" in Native American Studies, Ray Demallie, who is an expert on native mythology as well as "folklore". Technology is becoming a huge area for "mythology", and honestly, papers are written about everything from the influence of The Matrix, and the original I Robot Trilogy, to fear of change and the alternate "dissing" of those who fear technology as shown through situations like "the internet is a bunch of Tubes". It's fun stuff.--WaitingforGodot 11:57, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
Absolutely. It's very fascinating how a distinct Internet culture has been emerging over the last few years, complete with myths and legends, rituals, cutural signifiers, mainstream and fringe groups, and so on. It'll be very interesting to where this is going in the future, especially once it starts interacting with the off-line world, such as in the recent "Anonymous" demonstrations against Scientology. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 12:25, 15 July 2008 (EDT)
This will date me, but in my first year of Linguistics (1990, maybe?) I did a paper on BBS "communication" styles, including things like "lol", and teh happy faces, winky faces. My prof was really curious about this "online chatting" thing, thinking it would take off and a new commuinty would be created. And just as you said, "here we are". I think it's interesting how different people in teh older generations 50 and older embrace or loath the new technologies. Some, no matter what age, find it quite easy to communicate in this new community - and others are terrified by it. One question, does the real world have it's equlivenat to "trolls" and "sock puppets", though? -- 12:31, 15 July 2008 (EDT) Grumble, forgot i was on a different machine. that's Waitingforgodot, there.  ;-)
The paradigm shift is that on t'internet no one knows you're a dog. Silver Sloth 12:40, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

(undent) This got me thinking. Mythology is all about storytelling and how the stories become part of the culture. New technology has boosted this in two ways

  • Nowadays we all sit round the tribal fire telling tales - that's what we're doing here. We're swapping ideas and stories across vast differences in distance and culture.
  • The opportunities for jokers and troublemakers to inject myths into the system has magnified. I read it on t'internet - it must be true. snopes has multiple examples of people taking seriously parody or satirical postings and thus new myths are born.

Silver Sloth 13:22, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

See also: Monkey News. Barack Obama 13:25, 15 July 2008 (EDT)

Mythology of Science[edit]

I rather dislike this section, from an academic standpoint, cause it is not part of what a "mythology" is, but rather just a collection of urban myths. The American Civil religion or "national mythologys" do what mythology does, in that it tells us about how we see ourselves as a culture, as a people. Science myths don't tell us stories about how science works, don't help scientists self-identify as a cultural group, they are just neat urban legends. I think this topic would be better elsewhere. but as it's a serious shift, i'm not moving it without discussion, cause i'm a good girl and I hate edit wars.--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 18:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Nor true or false?[edit]

What does that "Despite the popular idea of myths as being something "false," neither truth nor lack of truth defines a myth. What makes a myth is how it impacts upon the culture and the culture's passing on of its standards." Mean?

I mean,the existence of everything can be regarded as true or false or at least very improbable in the light of reason. The popular idea of myths is right in my opinion. Thunders don't come from zeus as grace doesn't come from the judeo-christian god.

Gianga23 (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)