Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Both are polysemous words that don't have conventional meanings. Therefore, every time an author uses them, it is necessary to clarify with him what exactly he means by them. If, on the other hand, an author or interviewee is firmly convinced that their own meanings or those that they have learned from some popular sources are universal by default, so that they can tell someone “you have misidentified religion/mythology” or “you have confused religion and mythology”, such an author clearly lacks culture. This also applies to many other words in this field: faith, worldview, ideology, beliefs, beliefs, and so on.
The question is not as simple as it may seem at first glance, because experts are still struggling with the definition of the word “religion”, and the word “mythology” can find many meanings. But let me try to find an elegant way out:
Religion is a complex of actions, and mythology is a complex of knowledge (information). Accordingly, mythology, as a complex of knowledge, is part of religion, as a complex of actions on this knowledge.�
I just answered a similar question:�
https://thequestion.ru/questions/516505
The myth is made up, a lot of lies.
Orthodoxy is the truth.
And religion is the devil's bait , it's very simple.
Everyone learns that Orthodoxy is true after their death. But you can also learn in your earthly life if you stop fighting with God and resist the Holy Spirit.
If we talk about myth and mythology on the one hand, and about religion on the other, then one complements the other, we can even say that these are two sides of the same coin.
A myth is an organic set of ideas and beliefs, a worldview, the ideological core of any tradition of knowledge, and the customized software of this tradition.
Religion, as one of the traditions of knowledge, also has in its arsenal its own myth, its own mythology, which is built according to the laws of a particular religious myth. In other words, each religion has its own software stuffing (myth), its own Windows or Linux, as well as their variations and versions.
Science, for example, also has its own myth and its own mythology. In fact, as I have repeatedly written, it is nothing more than a sociocentric religion with its own authorities (Aristotle, Francis bacon, Newton, Einstein, Darwin, etc.), its scientific dogma (belief in “point”, “matter”, “time”, “space”, “the proof”, “experience”, etc.), its symbols of faith (“number”, “law of nature”), its rituals (“the study”, “symposiums”, “thesis”, “grant”), their priests (masters, candidates, doctors of sciences, professors, academicians), their temples (universities) and, finally, their confessions (branches of science with professional associations and a system of branch research institutes).
The identity is almost absolute. Except for one thing-the religion we are used to tries to answer the question “who is the truth” more (they study, so to speak, mainly the “ktoynost” of reality), and science tries to answer the question “how the world works” more (they study more “what is the nature”, the qualitative composition and functionality of the world). In other words, these traditions of knowledge have different focuses: religion tries to maintain communication with the essence of reality (“who” and “what”), and science meticulously examines the qualitative characteristics and laws of reality (“how”).
Science and religion, as well as other traditions of knowledge, complement each other like the colors of the same rainbow, working to understand and develop those bundles of great abstractions on which their socio-cultural searchlight of knowledge and faith has stopped.
By the way, if we talk about individual myths, then each person is immersed in his own mini-myth and builds his own mythological reality in his life, so to speak, creates a myth-design of his life.
And yes, myth has its own reality. In more detail, the term “myth” was analyzed by the Soviet philosopher Alexey Fedorovich Losev, who taught the mythic nature of human existence.
The concept of myth is actually synonymous with reality, which in some places is consistent and contiguous or is included in other, larger-scale myths, and in others it is not.
Perhaps the difference is very significant
Mythology is a story that contains information, tradition and culture of the worldview.�
Religion, on the other hand, is an ideological tool based on the same mythology with its information, tradition, and worldview culture
All this is “legitimized” by the adoption of religious dogmas and postulates
And it is presented as “truth” asserting only its own understanding and rejecting any dissent as heresy))�
For example, Christianity, too, at its Ecumenical Councils, has repeatedly affirmed its dogmas based on the “correct” vision and understanding.�
And convenient “labels” (“holy scripture” “this is the word of God” “those who reject eternal death”)� raised accepted dogmas to the rank of indisputable truth ))
Concepts have the property of interpretation, so I can only announce my subjective opinion. I prefer simple constructions.�
Religion claims the absolute reality of the real world and, through worship, embodies this reality in the belief in a higher goal (either posthumous or afterlife). Mythology is more limited in this respect. Myth in its most primitive form is outside of reality, but it has the property of describing this reality with symbols and signs or figurative and allegorical language. Instead of a real cult, there is a practice (pseudo-cult) that leads to the desired result without establishing causal relationships. The difficulty of distinguishing between the concepts of “religion “and” mythologism ” exists as a crisis of modern times, where atheist scientists look at religion from the point of view of mythological thinking and assert the monopoly of scientifically observed experience (hypercult). For the adherents of traditional religions, in turn, pantheistic religions are myths. It follows that it is more constructive to talk about the “religious point of view”, “mythological point of view” and “scientific point of view” than about phenomena as such. No religion, no mythologies, no science exists without a human being. Religion, mythology, and science are mutually intelligible, meaning that when viewed in pairs and in a general way, we can get nine points of view from them, and if we add the content of religions, myths, and theories, the points of view will multiply many times over. And there are no problems in this, problems only arise when we turn these different points of view into a competition and forget that they are just tools and “eyes” in the wall. Unfortunately, this is exactly what happens – natural selection for the “best”, “truest” and “most up-to-date point of view”. We want to find the truth through the blurring of points of view, and as a result, no point of view remains without distortion, but there is a fast food worldview to support the endless rat race.
Why the difference? Myth is the language of religion, since myth is not a lie or a fairy tale (although ordinary language understands it this way), but, according to A. F. Losev, a sacred name, a sacred word that symbolically tells about the esoteric secrets of religion. Next to myth are words such as epic (a word about heroes and events) and logos (a word about objects and real phenomena), nomos (a word about the laws of society; not to be confused with logos, in combination – a word about the laws of nature). There is also philosophy with its own very specific language, which allows it to be an interpreter between logos, myth, nomos and epic. The specificity of myth as a purely symbolic language implies the need for hermeneutics, or interpretation, which is what philosophy does, which interprets other named words in the same way. The most common mistake that has been made at all times and is still being made today is to take the mythological language literally. This is very clearly seen in the example of images and symbols of Christian Scripture as a mythological text, which for some reason is understood literally. If anyone is interested in this problem, please refer to the work of R. Bultman “The New Testament and Mythology”. (It has been translated into Russian.)
Myths underlie the religious beliefs and practices of many modern religions.
For example, the concept of an immortal soul existed in Babylonian-Assyrian mythology. Later, it migrated to Egyptian, Greek, Roman myths, and then to Christianity, becoming one of its key dogmas. Myths, in addition, indicate that ancient people were in search of gods and the meaning of life.
As far as I understand it, mythology is a dead (desacralized) religion. That is, all the myths that exist today in different epochs were living beliefs, for which wars were fought, which largely determined the worldview of the people who shared them.
But some beliefs were replaced by others. And this happened gradually and was necessarily accompanied by desacralizations, that is, the loss of the property of causing sacred awe in people.
And, even if now there is some group that firmly believes in the god Osiris, for example, it will still not be considered a religion.