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?
My opinion-please don't read Blavatsky. Her ideas, no matter how correct they may seem, are still a distortion.�
Any myth, of course, does not arise by chance, there are myths that pass from one culture to another – for example, the myth of the world tree (Scandinavia and Mexico), the flood (many countries), etc.�
And I will even allow myself to repeat: it is better to read the primary sources first, and then Blavatsky, if you really, really want to. And it is better, after all, not to read.
I don't see any contradictions between mzhd and the two points of view. There was an event, such as a local flood, which was described and passed down by word of mouth, from generation to generation, year after year, century after century, gaining new details and further losing its similarity to the original with each retelling. After some time, this came to our days as the story of the deluge.
If so, where is the contradiction? Is there a prototype behind the myth? Is worth. Scientific skepticism is not affected**? No, it wasn't hurt. The fact that there is ALWAYS a prototype behind any myth is of course debatable, people can invent anything from scratch. However, this is not excluded.�
* – I do not know if there is objective evidence that there is a historical prototype behind the flood, but there are several hypotheses. I'm just guessing.
** – provided that this is proven: for example, traces of the prototype and the first records about it are found.
My opinion is that there is no smoke without fire.
For example, Troy was never found, ” a fellow archaeologist, under the ridicule of his colleagues, began to study Homer's Illiad closely, believing that not everything there is fiction, and thanks to this, he managed to find the correct location of the city.
Another thing is that people interpret the same events differently, not to mention the different level of education of the population.
Therefore, it is absolutely not necessary to believe in the existence of gods or in some other completely crazy events, although most likely, there really are certain people endowed with strange abilities that greatly impressed their contemporaries.
Considering that even a person of the 21st century believes in all sorts of fortune tellers and slander, then what can we say about the ancient people?