This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Yes, at least in certain key aspects. Atheists are less likely to give to charity, for instance (I think that's the latest science), less likely to marry, and less likely to have children, all of which ultimately make society a less functional place.
Well, I dunno about that phrasing, I have not read Chesterton. But here's the quote:
In denying the doctrine of a religion you are (correctly or incorrectly) thereby sorting the diabolical from the divine, aren't you?
Well, first off, why (in your theory) do cultures unaffected by Christianity have stories resembling Christ!? Genuinely interested in your answer here!
From the Christian perspective, it's very clear that God, as revealed through Scripture, loves tropes (or memes) and Scripture plays with them repeatedly. It does not seem remotely odd from that perspective that similar ideas and tropes, echoing from the dawn of time and the Author of Man, would manifest in many separate cultures.
However if I put my Cranky Literalist hat on: I am actually very suspicious of the idea of the monomyth. I do think there are a number of tropes that are fairly common, perhaps to all mankind, possibly due to oral tradition but possibly also just due to human nature. (A separate POP SCIENCE tangent, but I am told there is evidence that oral traditions can persist up to 10,000 years, which is also, I am told, within "striking range" of humanity's most recent common ancestor, so presumably it's not crazy for cultures to share a monomyth by virtue of a common oral tradition). But from what I understand of the "monomyth" specifically, it derives from Campbell's The Hero With A Thousand Faces, which, admittedly, I have not read. (One of my friends did read it, and gave me a very negative review, so perhaps I am unfairly prejudiced.) But I strongly suspect Campbell (who was influenced by Jung) constructed a Procrustean bed that anyone so inclined can torture nearly any notable person into a "monomyth."
Wikipedia quotes Campbell's formula as follows:
You could apply this to a historical figures like Julius Caesar pretty easily, it proves nothing about their historicity. (If I was a professional apologist I would have a better example, my understanding is that there are some really fun ones out there.) In fact from what I understand many primitive cultures have initiation ceremonies into adulthood which means that you could apply the monomyth neatly to...practically everyone!
Now, I should note that comparative mythology is outside of my area of expertise. But I suspect that people whose expertise it is tend to overfit it. I'm particularly more than a little suspicious of Campbell (and people like Lewis and Tolkien) because I don't trust them to do the work to show that the "monomyth" is actually the same worldwide instead of just, basically, Western.
In short, my suspicion is that while there will be parallels between Christ and various other (mythical and real) people, suggesting that the Christ story is part of a monomyth (when done by friend or foe) is more a literary exercise than anything, and that while the idea of a "monomyth" is interesting taking it literally and seriously is a mistake (not just theologically, but as a matter of history and literature.)
I'm open to contrary takes on this, though!
If I put my literary crank hat on, I am fucking sick of the monomyth. Yet another example of a measure becoming a target. Can I ask if you recall where you heard of an oral tradition lasting 10k years? That seems implausible and like it could only be supported by a society that treats oral traditions as evidence, aka a silly one.
My understanding is that indigenous Australians are speculated to have extremely long oral traditions because some of them seem to line up with astronomic/geological phenomena. Example press release with overview, linking to the actual research (which I have not read): https://www.utas.edu.au/about/news-and-stories/articles/2023/tasmanian-aboriginal-oral-traditions-among-the-oldest-recorded-narratives-in-the-world
ETA: also, thanks for connecting "the measure becoming the target" to the monomyth.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Then by what definition of "diabolical" are other religions' miracles diabolical and how do we know they're diabolical? The review is very unclear about this.
In the case of prior myths and legends, I'd guess that the similarities are from blending common mythic elements with facts about the historical figure.
Sure, I agree the review is unclear about it, as it is a bit of a tangent. As I laid out in my longer comment, every hypothesis has to explain why it is different from every other hypothesis. In some cases this requires accepting opposed supernatural forces (actually in most cases, I think most, perhaps all, religious traditions teach that not all supernatural forces are aligned).
Yeah I mean, why are their common mythic elements? From what I understand Campbell was influenced by Jung, who had the psychological/mystical idea about some sort of collective unconscious (my apologies if I am butchering Jung, I have not read his work). But if you don't believe in the collective unconscious you have to do harder lifting.
From what I understand what e.g. Lewis does is says "isn't it odd that all stories have a Christ-figure-legend but none of the figures had historical backing until Christ shows up? That's very classic divine foreshadowing" which is an interesting take, but, well, I am not sure I buy the idea of a monomyth, at least in a very "tight" or specific sense.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link