"Joseph John Campbell (March 26, 1904 – October 30, 1987) was an American mythologist, writer and lecturer, best known for his work in comparative mythology and comparative religion. His work is vast, covering many aspects of the human experience. His philosophy is often summarized by his phrase: "Follow your bliss."[1]"
The series describes the message behind all religion, the meaning of religion in the life of an individual, and how that relates to the society that individual lives in. Campbell himself was not a religous man, but an academic, searching for patterns of meaning in religion (although later in life he grew more and more interested in eastern philosophy and religion.) It is both touching and transcendental as a series, all i can say is that no matter what your point of view on these things, you should at least try and watch it.
On June 03 2012 01:26 Integra wrote: Anyone serious about this and wants to know more go and read The Hero with a Thousand Faces, also written by by Joseph Campbell.
There's also a book version of the "Power of Myth" series. It contains transcripts of some interview segments that didn't make it into the show. I read it as a sophmore in highschool. Looking back, it was probably the first inclination I ever had that I wasn't alone in my religious skepticism, that there were others out there who thought like me.
I really hope this thread stays on-topic enough to remain open. It's a really interesting/important discussion to have.
Its interesting in that Campbell's work and philosophy tread a very fine line between conventional religous skepticism (such as Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens etc.) and Eastern philosophy, with elements of Jungian psychology thrown in. This kind of work tends to be disregarded by most skeptics because its vague sort of 'gooiness', and disregarded by most religous scholars because of its lack of specific faith/belief values.
im about half way through the video, and he's already displayed a remarkable misunderstanding of the mainstream Christian doctrine:
1) Christianity is no about a rejection of life as a whole, but of this sinful life.
2) Christianity has never been about withdrawing onesself from the struggles of others, or detatching onesself.
3) Jesus' command to refrain from judging refers to people, not things. it is, in the Christian view foolish to believe that we cannot judge an action or an idea as evil or good, but it is equally foolish to think we can judge a man as evil or good.
its interesting so far though, will edit with more later
edit: he is very... inconsistent. in one breath he will say that there is no good or evil, but then in the next he warns against anger and rancor and maliciousness. which is it? if they are not evil, and if the alternative is not good, than those feelings shoud be as legitimate and desireable as any other feelings.
edit 2: the Ascension, as understood by the writers of the Gospels and by almost all Christians since then, was never meant to be read as a metaphor, i see far too much of this in this man's opinions so far: putting his own anaylsis on the myth or legend or religious scripture, and then presuming that the originators of the scripture, myth or legend felt the same way that he does.
edit 3: he says: "we cannot identify with Jesus, we have to imitate Jesus" (he means that normal Christian thought is that we cannot be God ourselves, but must act like God). this is a common misunderstanding. we cannot be God the Father, and as we are now (sinners), we cannot be children of God either. that is where the imitation comes in: we as sinners have not learned to be as God is, so we must learn how, then we can be called children of God, and be said to be "like" God. basically: it is not blasphemy to suggest finding the Christ within onesself, rather, that is the essence of Christianity. find the child of God that was made and still remains.
edit 4: i believe he overstates both the difference in values between time-periods and cultures, and the usefulness in adapting a moral code to "a new age"
edit 5: just finished it, and while i disagree with him on a lot, it is clear that he is an intelligent scholar. i would be interested in reading some of his books or seeing more of him. good find, OP.
On June 03 2012 02:14 Uni1987 wrote: Religion always gives a me a good laugh.. Unbelievable mankind still believes in that crap anno 2012. Yeah, quite the evolved race we are :')
This is exactly the attitude that Campbell wanted to destroy. Religion has carried our civilisation and guided it through the last 6000 years. Its message is not something to be ignored, but studied.
As an atheist who is a practicing celtic/norse pagan, I feel like the value of religion has too often been overlooked. I am happy to appreciation for mythology and stuff like this.
On June 03 2012 02:14 Uni1987 wrote: Religion always gives a me a good laugh.. Unbelievable mankind still believes in that crap anno 2012. Yeah, quite the evolved race we are :')
This is exactly the attitude that Campbell wanted to destroy. Religion has carried our civilisation and guided it through the last 6000 years. Its message is not something to be ignored, but studied.
Religion is not some academic subject to be figured out, but merely the intellectual manifestation of basic human experiences.
On June 03 2012 02:12 sc2superfan101 wrote: im about half way through the video, and he's already displayed a remarkable misunderstanding of the mainstream Christian doctrine:
1) Christianity is no about a rejection of life as a whole, but of this sinful life.
2) Christianity has never been about withdrawing onesself from the struggles of others, or detatching onesself.
3) Jesus' command to refrain from judging refers to people, not things. it is, in the Christian view foolish to believe that we cannot judge an action or an idea as evil or good, but it is equally foolish to think we can judge a man as evil or good.
its interesting so far though, will edit with more later
edit: he is very... inconsistent. in one breath he will say that there is no good or evil, but then in the next he warns against anger and rancor and maliciousness. which is it? if they are not evil, and if the alternative is not good, than those feelings shoud be as legitimate and desireable as any other feelings.
edit 2: the Ascension, as understood by the writers of the Gospels and by almost all Christians since then, was never meant to be read as a metaphor, i see far too much of this in this man's opinions so far: putting his own anaylsis on the myth or legend or religious scripture, and then presuming that the originators of the scripture, myth or legend felt the same way that he does.
edit 3: he says: "we cannot identify with Jesus, we have to imitate Jesus" (he means that normal Christian thought is that we cannot be God ourselves, but must act like God). this is a common misunderstanding. we cannot be God the Father, and as we are now (sinners), we cannot be children of God either. that is where the imitation comes in: we as sinners have not learned to be as God is, so we must learn how, then we can be called children of God, and be said to be "like" God. basically: it is not blasphemy to suggest finding the Christ within onesself, rather, that is the essence of Christianity. find the child of God that was made and still remains.
Your understanding of Christianity is about as shallow as Campbell's is deep.
because in my viewing, and in the viewing of the vast majority of Christians, Christianity is most definitely not meant to be read metaphorically, and is not primarily metaphor in any sense. in the Christian view, Jesus was not a symbol of an ideal man, but a living breathing ideal man.
On June 03 2012 02:14 Uni1987 wrote: Religion always gives a me a good laugh.. Unbelievable mankind still believes in that crap anno 2012. Yeah, quite the evolved race we are :')
This is exactly the attitude that Campbell wanted to destroy. Religion has carried our civilisation and guided it through the last 6000 years. Its message is not something to be ignored, but studied.
Religion is not some academic subject to be figured out, but merely the intellectual manifestation of basic human experiences.
On June 03 2012 02:39 sc2superfan101 wrote: how so, if you don't mind me asking?
because in my viewing, and in the viewing of the vast majority of Christians, Christianity is most definitely not meant to be read metaphorically, and is not primarily metaphor in any sense. in the Christian view, Jesus was not a symbol of an ideal man, but a living breathing ideal man.
The basic view here is that (i'm sorry to say it) the vast majority of Christians are simply wrong. Reading the Bible as a factual history book is plain wrong. If you look at the history of how the book was compended/written a factual reading of the Bible as historical fact is the same as a factual reading of Stalin's propaganda as historical fact.
Anyway this idea is not specific to Christianity, it applies to every major religion. Do you think the Native Americans see their stories as metaphor? I'm not sure they do, but to them, metaphor or fact is irrelevent, its what is contained within the mythology that matters.
On June 03 2012 02:39 sc2superfan101 wrote: how so, if you don't mind me asking?
because in my viewing, and in the viewing of the vast majority of Christians, Christianity is most definitely not meant to be read metaphorically, and is not primarily metaphor in any sense. in the Christian view, Jesus was not a symbol of an ideal man, but a living breathing ideal man.
The basic view here is that (i'm sorry to say it) the vast majority of Christians are simply wrong. Reading the Bible as a factual history book is plain wrong. If you look at the history of how the book was compended/written a factual reading of the Bible as historical fact is the same as a factual reading of Stalin's propaganda as historical fact.
wether they are wrong about the historicity of the situation or not, they are quite incapable of being wrong as to how the scripture itself was supposed to be read. one can find metaphors within the scripture, but one cannot then apply those metaphors as the correct interpretation of the scripture. multiple times in the video, he basically stated that people are misinterpreting the metaphors. this statement is factually incorrect, no matter how good his interpretation or true it may be, at the end of the day, the correct way to interpret scripture (or anything else for that matter) is the way the authors of it meant for it to be interpreted.
of course you should not read the Bible as a historical textbook. it was never meant to be a historical textbook, but niether was it meant to be seen as entirely metaphorical. as for the native american tribes, i suppose it would depend upon the tribe and the belief in question. perhaps you and i can see a metaphor within their stories and myths, but if they made uip and promulgated (i know thats the wrong word but i cant thin of the right one) the myths and stories as factual, rather than metaphorical, then it would be incorrect of us to say that the stories were metaphorical in nature and that the correct intepretation is that of recognizing the metaphor. basically, we can take the myths however we please, but the fact remains that we don't dictate what the myth is about, just like I can decide what I want about Lord of the Rings, but whatever i decide will not make it a book that isn't about hobbits.
On June 03 2012 02:39 sc2superfan101 wrote: how so, if you don't mind me asking?
because in my viewing, and in the viewing of the vast majority of Christians, Christianity is most definitely not meant to be read metaphorically, and is not primarily metaphor in any sense. in the Christian view, Jesus was not a symbol of an ideal man, but a living breathing ideal man.
This is great, because you've precisely missed the point.
The idea is that it's completely real to you and anyone else who holds your religious beliefs. The factual accuracy of it is secondary at best. You believe it, and that's all that matters. Cambell wants to explain why you believe it. What feeling or desire does it fulfil? What role does it play in your social structure or culture?
Unfortunately for you, you almost have to be a member of the "out group" in order to answer these questions. You'll say you believe it because it's true, but that's really not the point. You're being analyzed here.
I'm no expert, but would like to say that analysis of groups "from without" does not necessarily preclude the person conducting the analysis from misinterpretation or incorrect views of said groups.
EPT
