Mythos and logos in Western thought

¶ … mythos and logos?

The most direct linguistic renderings of 'mythos' and 'logos' into English would be that of 'myth' and 'logic.' In our current conceptualization of faith, there is often a distinction between these different ways of knowing. It is commonly expressed in the public discourse that faith and science are fundamentally bifurcated. Another way of conceptualizing the notion of 'mythos' and 'logos' is the difference between 'being' and 'thinking.' To be living in mythological time is to be living and being in the present. There is a unity of body and mind, rather than a division. Mythos is also seen as ritual time, in which the past is reenacted and made present. On a very literal level, logos means a 'laying out' of something, implying a certain degree of rational order that is inherent in the universe that can be observed provided the individual regards the world with enough scrutiny. Mythos gives us no such reassurance, suggesting that other ways of apprehending the world around us are necessary to understand the workings of the cosmos.

For example, in a religious ritual of symbolism like the blowing of the shofar or the Christian Mass, the ancient history of the faith is taken into the present through religious reenactment. A myth is something that cannot be pinned down to a historical date. A myth is something that exists in 'all time' rather than at one time. It could also be argued that art and literature are directly connected to mythos. One of the greatest compliments one can give to any work of fiction, or any rendering of an artistic subject is that it is timeless in nature. A great film like Casablanca, a great painting like the Mona Lisa, or a great work like Shakespeare's Hamlet has a life beyond the century that gave birth to these creations and can be reinterpreted. The notion of 'archetypes' reflects a mythos-driven conceptualization of the world.

In contrast, logos is something which is highly linear and definitive in the manner in which it is conceptualized. The traditions of analytic philosophy and science spring from the concept of logos. Logos demands a clear definition of the phenomenon that is being described in a manner that is distilled of pure emotions. What is stated from a logical perspective must be proven. A historical event takes place at a specific time and place, unlike a myth. Of course, when using deductive logic, to some degree, there is a notion of a principle that can stand 'for all time' because of the manner in which it is proven, like a geometric proof. But unlike mythos, this proof is not based in emotion, but is instead based in rationality. And what is rationally proven can also be disproven, in contrast to the truths established by mythos. A scientific law can always be invalidated with exceptions. But one of the difficulties of arguing in terms of beliefs that are rooted in mythos is that mythological beliefs are not based upon logic, but based upon intuition, custom, and personal experience. It is very difficult to 'unthink' ones' self from a belief grounded in mythos.

Of course, in our daily lives, most people harbor beliefs based in a mix of logic and emotionalism. Although 'primitive man' is often seen as living in mythos-driven time, while modern man is seen as living in the world of logos, both thought structures are to some degree required to deal with the complexities of human life, which reflect realities established in both reason and custom.

Q2. Who are the Pre-Socratics?

Pre-Socratic philosophers are not simply important because of the manner in which they reflected belief structures which influenced Socrates, or to which Socrates responded. In fact, in many ways some of their thoughts and beliefs are more resonant and commensurate with modern thought than with Platonism, with its highly abstract concept of the world of the forms. Pre-Socratic philosophers were the first thinkers to conceptualize atomic theory. Writers such as Leucippus and Democritus proposed that all structures could be broken down into the same, essential components. The radicalism behind this notion is that all objects are fundamentally the same, and there is no essential hierarchy in terms of what constitutes the essential substance of all things. This concept runs fundamentally counter against much of later Judeo-Christian philosophy which suggests that man stands atop a hierarchy of all animals, and that certain substances are inherently superior to other substances.

Pre-Socratics thus also suggested that what was evident to the eye was not necessarily all that was true in the universe. They demanded a rationalistic view of the world. Although Socrates would not necessarily have agreed with all of the actual ideas proposed by the Pre-Socratics, his essential method of rigorous questioning of all 'common sense' and supposedly self-evident truth does spring directly from their view of the universe. To understand the Socratic Method, it is important to understand Pre-Socratic philosophy. The Pre-Socratics relied upon logos rather than mythos as a way of apprehending and interpreting the world. Socrates, who took a rather deflationary view of the reality of Greek mythology, would of course be famously persecuted for impiety and corrupting the youth of Athens for embracing this viewpoint.