Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Do Myths have any basis on Reality?


  • Please log in to reply
66 replies to this topic

#61    liseely

liseely

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 3 posts
  • Joined:20 Apr 2013

Posted 20 April 2013 - 07:10 AM

Welcome to  have more fun game waiting for you www.arm2teeth.com
http://www.gw2farm.com


#62    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 3,155 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 20 April 2013 - 07:16 AM

I think some are true based on real people and events, while others are like children`s drawings in the stars, in the sands, and of the bones and stones giving them personalities.:)


#63    whitegandalf

whitegandalf

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 157 posts
  • Joined:11 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:Heaven

  • Be silent. Keep your forked tongue behind your teeth. I did not pass through fire and death to bandy crooked words with a witless worm.

Posted 20 April 2013 - 07:24 PM

View Postjaylemurph, on 20 April 2013 - 12:36 AM, said:



Ohhh, I get it. Everybody who did this before you just used the wrong kind of logic. Or didn't know what they were talking about. (Whew. It's a good thing you appeared to show everybody else how wrong they were. Otherwise we might just mistake it for crowing about how clever you were for really figuring out what's going on.)

@-Every generation born today has more knowledge than the past one. The old ones are getting ever more outdated.

Tell /that/ to a geometry student. Or a Classical Philosophy undergraduate.

@- the knowledge of the ancient was great at some areas but generally it was poorer than today. If the ancient greeks tried to describe lets say america, a place they probably never themself visited, i would rather trust americas size and description acording to the modern scholars rather than the ancient ones.

And tell that to the ancient Greeks who were able to fairly accurately predict the circumference of the Earth. Those poor ignorant savages who weren't smart enough to know what they were talking about! Because if Hercules travelled 13.6 km to Lernia to kill the Hydra and not the 10 km in the myth just brings the whole suspension of disbelief crashing down on the readers or listeners.
-they somethimes were right and accurate, sometimes they were not.

Good god, man! Metaphor! Next you'll being saying they use simile. Or Zeugma! Or even synedoche! Thank god we've removed all that rhetorical nonsense from our fiction.



What a remarkable observation. IF ONLY someone had figured this out before you.



So then naturally, these stupid people given to fancy could only report true things they saw, just emellished. They could never make them up. At all.

@-They mostly did not make things up. The one who did was not trustworthy and was probably drunks or even worse actors. If you just make things up and lies you were an outcast, and the liar stories did not get far.

Because no one has ever done this, ever. Ever.



So against you provide numerous example... oh. No. No, you don't. But you're a /totally/ unbiased source for this, right? And there's no difference between a poor theory and a well-supported theory, so everyone here hates all theories equally, right?

@- no, just some, like you. Many are open minded and instead of poor critics brings new thoughts and information to the table.

I'm not sure how actually useful a judiciary/historical analogy is, to begin with. (Who exactly is the one on trial? Why is there a trial? Wouldn't historians be the jury and not the judge?) But are you suggesting historians never change their findings? And that history books never get new editions?

@-They mostly never change their minds or do new research in many fields if not undisputable hard evidence comes up. Even then they in many cases ignore it, or make a crazy new explanation that makes the old theory still stand. In many cases you get laughed at, loose your job and get thrown out of the science sosial society if you attempt to challenge old ideas. Thats why so many amateours take responsibility and brings new theories forward and sucseed. they have not so much to loose.

If you think that, by the way, just... stop. You'll've prooved you don't know a thing about the systen you're decrying, and if you don't know what you're talking about, you should save us having to read you and yourself from looking very silly.



Oh. So. Yeah. Either you mean here "..and not dismiss my pet theory cause I'm totes serious about it" or "I don't know enough about historiography and the profession and working conditions of historians to have a worthwhile opinion on the subject."

Wait, no. Those are not mutually exclusive conclusions. It's def. possible for you to be wrong more than one way.

--Jaylemurph

@@@
The rest is so riddiculus that it doesent deserve an answer..

Edited by whitegandalf, 20 April 2013 - 07:30 PM.


#64    The_Spartan

The_Spartan

    Spartan Forever!!!!

  • Member
  • 3,700 posts
  • Joined:31 Mar 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Abu Dhabi, UAE

  • Gravity is Arbitrary!!

Posted 20 April 2013 - 07:57 PM

Myths can be of many shapes

1. A Myth is born when humans wonder about natural forces, ascribe them divine characteristics, make up stories of their origin & embellish the stories. For example, Thunder, is a force of nature. Lightning is a Force of nature. Different  cultures made up their own stories about Thunder, ascribed a God for thunder, Zeus, Indra etc.
they saw the sun rise in the east, move across the sky and set in the west. Of course, they thought of the sun to be divine. Divine beings would naturally travel in divine vehicles. so come the story of sun moving across the sky, riding a chariot driven  by divine flying horses. All Pantheons are basically natural  forces ascribed divine images and embellished to the umpteenth hell and heaven combined.

2. A Myth is born when a factual person or event is ascribed divine proportions or embellished. Say, a great battle rages. The hero of the myth fights with the enemy chieftain or king. Suddenly lightning strikes the poor enemy king who had his sword high. Myth rises that the hero smote him down with thunder. Hero grows into a god. blah blah blah. The event becomes embellished. many embellished tales make an epic.

3. A mythical story is born when wise old men of the past, made up stories to teach the younger generations moral of life...good triumphs over evil. what better story that one one of their mythical "god" men battling against odds, in battle against the evil enemy who would by now have been ascribed evil proportions= ice giants, asuras, etc.

4. A myth is born, when some con men cook  up false gods, and ascribe them with false powers and false stories. embellishment unparalleled.

edit to add :

Gandalf, your "riddiculus" is too ridiculous!! No attempt to debate, no attempt to spell check,

Edited by The_Spartan, 20 April 2013 - 08:00 PM.

"Wise men, when in doubt whether to speak or to keep quiet, give themselves the benefit of the doubt, and remain silent.-Napoleon Hill

Follow my stupid posts on Tumblr at Azrael's Ramblings

#65    lightly

lightly

    metaphysical therapist

  • Member
  • 5,601 posts
  • Joined:01 Apr 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan U.S.A.

  • "The future ain't what it used to be"
    Yogi Berra

Posted 21 April 2013 - 09:01 PM

the myth of Selkies , mythical beings who shape shift from seals to human are thought to have some basis in reality.  The reality has been distorted,into myth, and as Spartan said of other myths, "Embellished " , to  which i might dare to add ,  reinforced.. at times by later events which are absorbed into the mythology?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selkie

Theories of origins

One folklorist theory of the origin of the belief is that the selkies were actually fur-clad Finns, traveling by kayak. Another is that shipwrecked Spaniards washed ashore and their jet black hair resembled seals.[4] As the anthropologist A. Asbjorn Jon has recognized though, there is a strong body of lore that indicates that selkies "are said to be supernaturally formed from the souls of drowned people".[5]

http://www.orkneyjar...iefolk/origins/

Although the old folk of Orkney had three possible folkloric origins for the shapeshifting selkie-folk, to the scholar of Orcadian mythology, the source of the tales is not as clear-cut.
To get a better idea of the source of the selkie-folk mythology, I believe we need to examine the mythology surrounding another “creature” found in Orkney and Shetland — in particular its development over time and geographical space. I believe the selkie folklore is inextricably tied up with the tales of the Finfolk, and that at one time these two magical races were regarded as one and the same.
Although Orkney folklore now regards the selkie-folk and the Finfolk as completely separate, both clearly have the same source — the people the early Norwegian settlers referred to as "Finns".
These were the Saami people of Scandinavia - a race feared and respected as great magicians.

http://www.orkneyjar...olk/selorig.htm

Selkie lore is not confined to Orkney but is also found in the Western Isles, Ireland and down the north and western coasts of Scotland. There, the seal-people are referred to as "silkies" or "selchies".
On first glance, the common element - selkie/silkie/selchie - in these different forms of dialect indicates a common root to the tales of the seal-people, perhaps stemming from early Celtic mythology or tradition.
But, in my opinion, the lore of the selkie-folk and that of the Finfolk were once one and the same. And they had a definite Scandinavian source.

Edited by lightly, 21 April 2013 - 09:02 PM.

Important:  The above may contain errors, inaccuracies, omissions, and other limitations.

#66    jaylemurph

jaylemurph

    Lector Historiae

  • Member
  • 8,747 posts
  • Joined:02 Nov 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Seattle, WA

  • "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make him think." Dorothy Parker

Posted 21 April 2013 - 11:02 PM

View Postwhitegandalf, on 20 April 2013 - 07:24 PM, said:

@-Every generation born today has more knowledge than the past one. The old ones are getting ever more outdated.

The second part of that is patently not true. Some things remain constant. Mathematics doesn't change -- pi is the same thing to us as it was the Ancient Greeks. The circumference of the Earth is still the same as when they calculated it. These things do not become outdated. I'm pretty sure Oedipus Rex and the Iliad still teach the same lessons to us about tragedy and war they did to the Greeks, although that could be debatable.

Somethings do change, though, as technology and methodology is refined. I'd be foolish to debate that point, but your point -- We Know More than the Ancient Greeks -- is not unilaterally true.

Quote

@- the knowledge of the ancient was great at some areas but generally it was poorer than today. If the ancient greeks tried to describe lets say america, a place they probably never themself visited, i would rather trust americas size and description acording to the modern scholars rather than the ancient ones.

So even /you/ concede your point above is wrong. I'm not sure pointing out that "people who don't know something exists can't be trusted to give accurate information about it" is much on point, either, except to prove the paucity of salient factors in your argument.

Quote

@they somethimes were right and accurate, sometimes they were not.

Which in no way strengthens the argument you make and buttresses the point I make.

Quote

@-They mostly did not make things up.

Okay. Which means you need to do two things: one, prove it. And two, show your perfect method by which you can prove what is made up and what was real. (Harsh says all the time he can do this, but never seems to be able to show other people his technique. If you can do it, he'd be grateful for the tip. So would loads of comp lit and history students.)

So go on. Put your money where your mouth is. /Show/ us.

Quote

@The one who did was not trustworthy and was probably drunks or even worse actors.

Again, show us some proof. Pointless slurs against actors aside* -- and the fact that we have no extant recorded /anything/ from actors in Ancient Greece -- how do you know what Plato or anyone says else is any more reliable than writers of fiction? (Dramatists, poets and other writers of fiction could be argued to be /more/ truthful, as they never make any effort to report anything true or real, so they cannot by definition be lying. Historians -- which I /guess/ you're using Plato as, despite the fact he was clearly using Atlantis as a metaphor -- on the other hand, routinely composed whole speeches for historical figures that the figures never said, so the writing of non-fiction authors is generally less trustworthy than fiction writers.)

Quote

@If you just make things up and lies you were an outcast, and the liar stories did not get far.

Again, I ask you to prove anything in this statement. On the other hand, playwrights, who made things up professionally, were revered in Ancient Greece. They competed amongst themselved yearly and the winner was awarded by the city government. That's hardly "not going far" or being an "outcast." (Actors are a different story, but like I said, we don't have anything written by them to make the comparison you suggest.)

Quote

@- no, just some, like you. Many are open minded and instead of poor critics brings new thoughts and information to the table.

You seem to mistake your own theories presented without evidence, and ignorant of the conventions of the society you presumed to speak about, and ignorant of the profession you speak against as a "good" theory. Moreover, you imply that not recognizing your errant speculation to be "poor criticism." I argue that careful consideration of the form and content of an argument based on familiarity of the subject matter is, in actuality, good criticism. It is, therefore, a sound piece of criticism to look at your statements in askance. I appeal to any other readers for their opinion on that.

If you have a different definition of what criticism is, you should share it.

And again, I urge you to prove your thesis: to prove my lack of critical skills, show me an example of where I was wrong and didn't admit it or used poor judgement or knowledge in making an opinion. Keep in mind: merely having the bad taste to disagree with you does not in itself constitute poor judgement.

Quote

@-They mostly never change their minds or do new research in many fields if not undisputable hard evidence comes up.

Fine. Show an instance of this. For all your alleging the opinions of historians never change, you don't really actually have anything to back that up. Show us a historical idea with a competing bit of fringe lunacy. Critique the mainstream idea and show (specifically) what is wrong with it and in what specific ways the fringe lunacy is better, and how it was abandoned/ignored by the mainstream.

Note: I mean /you/ do it; don't cut and paste from somebody's web site, or Youtube documentary, or some cheap mass market paperback.

Quote

Even then they in many cases ignore it,

Then show us.

Quote

or make a crazy new explanation that makes the old theory still stand.

Show us.

Quote

In many cases you get laughed at,

Show it.

Quote

loose your job and get thrown out of the science sosial society if you attempt to challenge old ideas.

Proove it.

Quote

Thats why so many amateours take responsibility and brings new theories forward and sucseed. they have not so much to loose.

Again, Show it. Show us. Show me. (Gods, I sound like Eliza Doolittle at the end of My Fair Lady...) I've asked you before to show some familiarity with the mechanics of the professional history, to show you have the knowledge of it to make worthwhile criticism. You still haven't done that. So far, your argument against it adds up to "they don't like my pet theory and that makes me sad", but you don't provide any even one iota of reason to believe you somehow know better. Let me be clear (since you accuse me of poor critical skills) I'm not even saying you're wrong, per se. I'm just saying you've given no good reason, no evidence, no anything, really, to make a credible argument. I guess you mean that we should agree with you because... you're charming and witty and handsome? You haven't really given us anything else to work with.


Quote

@@@
The rest is so riddiculus that it doesent deserve an answer..

Yeah, I'd probably avoid questions, too, if I were in your spot. Because ignoring them is exactly the same as making cogently answered rebuttals, right? It totally makes your point for you.

--Jaylemurph

*Seriously, that's just mean and uncalled for here. Did an actor steal away one of your boy/girlfriends?

"... amongst the most obstinate of our opinions may be classed those which derive from discussions in which we affect to search for the truth, while in reality we are only fortifying prejudice."     -- James Fenimore Cooper, The Pathfinder

Posted Image

Deeply venial

#67    Harsh86_Patel

Harsh86_Patel

    Psychic Spy

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,306 posts
  • Joined:08 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:India

  • If you stare into the abyss,the abyss stares back into you

Posted 22 April 2013 - 05:52 AM

View PostThe_Spartan, on 20 April 2013 - 07:57 PM, said:

Myths can be of many shapes

1. A Myth is born when humans wonder about natural forces, ascribe them divine characteristics, make up stories of their origin & embellish the stories. For example, Thunder, is a force of nature. Lightning is a Force of nature. Different  cultures made up their own stories about Thunder, ascribed a God for thunder, Zeus, Indra etc.
they saw the sun rise in the east, move across the sky and set in the west. Of course, they thought of the sun to be divine. Divine beings would naturally travel in divine vehicles. so come the story of sun moving across the sky, riding a chariot driven  by divine flying horses. All Pantheons are basically natural  forces ascribed divine images and embellished to the umpteenth hell and heaven combined.

2. A Myth is born when a factual person or event is ascribed divine proportions or embellished. Say, a great battle rages. The hero of the myth fights with the enemy chieftain or king. Suddenly lightning strikes the poor enemy king who had his sword high. Myth rises that the hero smote him down with thunder. Hero grows into a god. blah blah blah. The event becomes embellished. many embellished tales make an epic.

3. A mythical story is born when wise old men of the past, made up stories to teach the younger generations moral of life...good triumphs over evil. what better story that one one of their mythical "god" men battling against odds, in battle against the evil enemy who would by now have been ascribed evil proportions= ice giants, asuras, etc.

4. A myth is born, when some con men cook  up false gods, and ascribe them with false powers and false stories. embellishment unparalleled.

edit to add :

Gandalf, your "riddiculus" is too ridiculous!! No attempt to debate, no attempt to spell check,
We should also not forget that Troy, Saraswati rive, Ram sethu bridge....once thought to be myths with no basis in reality actually turned out to be factual.

Edited by Harsh86_Patel, 22 April 2013 - 05:52 AM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users