Talk:Mythopoeic thought

Mythology B‑class High‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Mid‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Thoughts on furthering the critics section

I think the criticism section should include a presentation of Leszek Kolakowski's arguments. He argues in his book "The Presence of Myth" that the mythical thinking never has "left" or "been left aside". Rather human thinking is always and inevitably mythical. (Sometimes less, sometimes more, though.)

Or as the amazon.com book description puts it: With The Presence of Myth, Kolakowski demonstrates that no matter how hard man strives for purely rational thought, there has always been-and always will be-a reservoir of mythical images that lend "being" and "consciousness" a specifically human meaning.

http://www.amazon.com/Presence-Myth-Leszek-Kolakowski/dp/0226450570/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202498666&sr=8-1

I'd do it myself, but I'm a bit too busy right now. Although, if no one else does it within next few months I'll get onto it eventually. :) Androg (talk) 19:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Be careful, though. This article isn't just about "mythical thinking"; it's about a specific explanation for the origins of mythology. Basically, according to the Frankforts' theory of mythopoeic thought, ancient man didn't think in terms of fixed, necessary laws and, therefore, saw events as acts of god (rather than outcomes of natural processes). Make sure that Kolakowski is specifically criticizing the idea that mythopoeic thought has been abandoned. I haven't read Kolakowski; for all I know, he could simply be arguing that modern man still clings to mythical images or still feels moved by mythological themes. It's quite possible that modern man has abandoned mythopoeic thought even if he retains images and themes from mythology. However, you're the one who introduced Kolakowski, so I assume that you're the best judge of whether he's relevant. --Phatius McBluff (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cited source

The cited source for this page(there is only one) is initially interesting but devolves into a politically charged rant that gives the distinct impression that it is grinding axes having nothing to do with Mythopoeic thought. I realized the low probability of any further reading value when I reached the reference to J.K. Galbraith as a crypto-socialist. One could take such a label in stride but it was in the midst of a series of statements that communicate more of the author's political opinion and a currently internet pervasive set of notions about economics that are most likely outside of the author's particular education and expertise.

Is this reference typical of the work of those who contemplate Mythopoeic thought?74.203.193.5 (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think you misunderstood the structure of the article. The external link listed at the bottom is not a "source" for the article's claims. The sources are the books listed in the "Sources and bibliography" section. Look at the endnotes. Anyhow, I agree that the external link is a bit annoying. It connects you to an article written by a man (a philosophy professsor, apparently) who likes to inject his political philosophy into everything from metaphysics to discussions of Near Eastern fertility goddesses. Yet he does provide a good summary of mythical thought. Thus, the link is appropriate (although I wouldn't be devastated if someone decided to remove it). --Phatius McBluff (talk) 05:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Mythopoeic thought/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Very good. Several ideas - in the very first part of info it comes across like authority, not like an opinion of certain scholars. not till the end does one realize there is criticism (which makes a lot of sense), so mention there are opponents and beef up the criticism a bit. a picture needed. Goldenrowley 02:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 02:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 00:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)