Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Do Myths have any basis on Reality?


debmedia

Recommended Posts

Myths that have carried on for 1000's of years may not be fairy tales. It is entirely possible that most of them are either partly or completely true and represent actual events, sometimes presented with a poetic flavour.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=93v6rGjxb5U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bwemE10woPg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Unfortunately, we have no reliable way to tell the completely-made-up bits from the could-possibly-maybe-be-based-on-something-someone-remembered-wrong-but-was-sort-of-true bits. You keep claiming to be able to do this; why don't you tell us your secret, if it's anything short of "assuming everything is true", which is patently ridiculous?

--Jaylemurph

Fortunately you have a way to prove that those myths were true. All you have to do is convince the monopoly club of mainstream scholars, build a consensus in whatever way you can and then the Myth would by default become a mainstream fact.

Assuming that the ancients were a bunch of idiots believing fantastic stories without any basis for 1000's of years would be a equally fallacious assumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fortunately you have a way to prove that those myths were true. All you have to do is convince the monopoly club of mainstream scholars, build a consensus in whatever way you can and then the Myth would by default become a mainstream fact.

Assuming that the ancients were a bunch of idiots believing fantastic stories without any basis for 1000's of years would be a equally fallacious assumption.

So how does one separate fiction, facts, exaggerations and allegories then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fortunately you have a way to prove that those myths were true. All you have to do is convince the monopoly club of mainstream scholars, build a consensus in whatever way you can and then the Myth would by default become a mainstream fact.

No no no. This is the /why/, not the how. You answered the wrong question. (This is called dodging the question. I suspect you're doing this because you *don't* have your much vaunted away of doing this, or if you do, it amounts to nothing better than "The things I want to be true are true and the things that would make me look silly are not." That, by the way, is called EdgarCayce-ism.)

Assuming that the ancients were a bunch of idiots believing fantastic stories without any basis for 1000's of years would be a equally fallacious assumption.

Let me be very specific: I don't think just because fiction exists, all people take it as literally true. I think most people are smart enough to understand the difference between fiction -- even fiction based on actual events -- and reality. You're not one of those people, obviously, and it's a shame you stumbled on Sitchinesque pseduo-history first,* but I think they make up most of humanity.

--Jaylemurph

*Imagine how confused Harsh could have been if he picked up Finnegan's Wake or Naked Lunch or Alice in Wonderland instead. "Wonderland: the Reality They Tried to Cover Up!"

Edit: spelling

Edited by jaylemurph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how does one separate fiction, facts, exaggerations and allegories then?

You use your brain and logic.. You can expect at least some of the ancient myth to be based on true happenings. You can also asume that their knowledge in ancient was limited, and that geografical size and age can be somewhat inaccurate. Todays experts with archelogical and geological can in some cases make a more educated guess than the ancient ones, especially in second hand stories and the oldest myths.

One can expect myth somethimes used metafors in their writing. A dragon or a wolf or a giant does not always mean that litteraly. It could be just another tribe or kingdom that called themself dragons.. As humans in ancient used mainly oral storytelling, one would ekspect them to be very good storytellers, with vivid imagination. This was part entertainment and part history.

One can also research if there is a possibility that something could have been true, and not on forhand dismiss every myth based on lack of hard evidence. A plausibility is enough. If you have enough plausabilities, circumstances and soft evidence then you have a theory.

So many people in here are strongly against any form of theories, and dismiss everything that is not 100 percent proven by hard evidence.

In the justice system one does not need hard undisputible evidence to convict a man for murder (at least in scandinavia) it is only eneough to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. And even hard evidence is not always true, it can be tampered with, the police can be corrupt, scientists make mistakes, somethimes with purpose. Even a eyewitness can lie or look wrong.

If we ever are to find the truth and make discoveries one must look and search, and not dismiss every theory that is not the official leading theory.

Edited by whitegandalf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do myths have any basis on reality? Are we talking MTV jersey shore reality or American Idol reality or real reality? since in resent times a lot of gray area has creeped into reality you may need to explain further. reality is how you see the world. so if someones perception is different from yours and they tell you this story based on their reality then yes. you also have to explain what a myth is. because what you view as a myth may be fact to someone else? just look at the whole flat earth Myth for along time people thought the earth was flat. you sail west for to long you fall of it that explains why up until columbus (or leif erikson) nobody came back. so in their eyes the myth had a bases in reality and as it turns out a completely wrong view (I think?) In other words I cannot answer your question do to lack of my grasp on this reality thing you speak of. you'll have to exuse me my pet unicorn (It's in the bible) helped me write this he snickered alot.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You use your brain and logic.. You can expect at least some of the ancient myth to be based on true happenings.

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.)

You can also asume that their knowledge in ancient was limited

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

, and that geografical size and age can be somewhat inaccurate. Todays experts with archelogical and geological can in some cases make a more educated guess than the ancient ones, especially in second hand stories and the oldest myths.

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.

One can expect myth somethimes used metafors in their writing.

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.

A dragon or a wolf or a giant does not always mean that litteraly. It could be just another tribe or kingdom that called themself dragons.

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

. As humans in ancient used mainly oral storytelling, one would ekspect them to be very good storytellers, with vivid imagination. This was part entertainment and part history.

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.

One can also research if there is a possibility that something could have been true, and not on forhand dismiss every myth based on lack of hard evidence. A plausibility is enough. If you have enough plausabilities, circumstances and soft evidence then you have a theory.

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

So many people in here are strongly against any form of theories, and dismiss everything that is not 100 percent proven by hard evidence.

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?

In the justice system one does not need hard undisputible evidence to convict a man for murder (at least in scandinavia) it is only eneough to prove something beyond reasonable doubt. And even hard evidence is not always true, it can be tampered with, the police can be corrupt, scientists make mistakes, somethimes with purpose. Even a eyewitness can lie or look wrong.

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?

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.

If we ever are to find the truth and make discoveries one must look and search, and not dismiss every theory that is not the official leading theory.

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

Edited by jaylemurph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Myths are sometimes based on reality but changed so much that only scholars can make the link. eg Dragons were real but did not have wings, did not breath fire and were not huge, maybe the size of a big pig. They did like to eat little children so when spotted the knights were sent to kill them and they became extinct. Some pagan gods were real. People sometimes decided to honor somebody by pretending he was a god. The Norse god Odin was a king who was deified. Queen Elizabeth is descended from him. Leprechauns, zombies, vampires were real.

We will probably never know if Atlantis was real. The first writer said it was real but we do not know where or when they existed, or what they called themselves or called their city. It is possible that the island of Santorino is the remains of a large island. It did blow up and ruins have been found near it. Alas, we may never know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So how does one separate fiction, facts, exaggerations and allegories then?

Use one's own judgement and available evidence. Even verbal vouching is often used as evidence. Dismissing the full content of the myth as a fairy tale mightg not be a prudent practice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No no no. This is the /why/, not the how. You answered the wrong question. (This is called dodging the question. I suspect you're doing this because you *don't* have your much vaunted away of doing this, or if you do, it amounts to nothing better than "The things I want to be true are true and the things that would make me look silly are not." That, by the way, is called EdgarCayce-ism.)

Let me be very specific: I don't think just because fiction exists, all people take it as literally true. I think most people are smart enough to understand the difference between fiction -- even fiction based on actual events -- and reality. You're not one of those people, obviously, and it's a shame you stumbled on Sitchinesque pseduo-history first,* but I think they make up most of humanity.

--Jaylemurph

*Imagine how confused Harsh could have been if he picked up Finnegan's Wake or Naked Lunch or Alice in Wonderland instead. "Wonderland: the Reality They Tried to Cover Up!"

Edit: spelling

"Things i want to be true" is something that plagues both the sides, the fringe as well as the mainstream.

You clearly have everything figured out it seems, your life must be very boring.

I didn't stumble into anything, i started out reading mainstream versions but what i realised is at times they were worse of then some fringe loonies. The demand for evidence and the quality of evidence is very selective.

Thinking that the ancient humans who propogated a myth(they thought of it as a actual event and not a myth) for 1000's of years were all foolish and lairs, is a not a position i am willing to take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@-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.

@- 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.

@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.

@-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.

@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.)

@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.)

@- 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.

@-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.

Even then they in many cases ignore it,

Then show us.

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

Show us.

In many cases you get laughed at,

Show it.

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

Proove it.

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.

@@@

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.