all of reality has been constructed upon the metaphores of old, the mythos.

all of reality has been constructed upon the metaphores of old, the mythos.

all we know is analogue to these metaphores.

I think the phrase "modern mythos" may be missleading: "my mythos," "your mythos," or "their mythos" may be more appropriate.

I certainly do this when it works, when it doesn't I'm happy to expend the extra energy needed to form new metaphors. I don't instinctively bother unless something seems wrong however.

I think that logos is more expensive, in terms of "mental costs," and that we avoid it instinctively unless mythos doesn't bear fruit in a particular realm.

Interesting perhaps are those cases where logos is used to construct a mythos, which is then utilized dogmatically.

One could argue that it is impossible to seperate the two. The way knowledge is constructed to correspond with previous experience relies on the same dynamics as with rationality or logics, even.

This view certainly calls into question the "sanctity" of our ideas, which is a rather positive side effect in my opinion. Clearly one of the dangers of this type of thinking is that it would be easy to accept defective external mythoi which one has not evaluated properly.

So if one accepts the fact that descriptions of reality is just a matter of convention one could easely decide which one to use by comparing its abilty and effectivness in describing the phenomena. You are still describing the same reality.

I often feel that maintaining more than one explanatory structure is very useful. One can switch between them as as needed, when one has more utility for the problem at hand. Even when there are ultimately contradictions between two models this tactic can often serve well.

But what does this say about our concept of reality, when two condtradicting models could by themselves explain a given phenomena as precise and effective as the other one? :eek: Are we simply uncovering different aspects of the object observed?

How do you see your understandig of the world broaden? How does one become aware? An interesting take on the matter is the "mythos over logos" argument which states that all of reality has been constructed upon the metaphores of old, the mythos. If so, it follows logicaly that all we know is analogue to these metaphores. This argument may not be as valid as it once was, but it is worth our attention when reflecting upon how one becomes aware and describes reality. One could say that in describing reality you choose only the explanations that corresponds with the contemporary "mythos" and as much as possible avoid descriptions that would be in conflict with these.The implications of this argument is vast, but worth debating! As the proverb goes: "We see want we want to see." Comments?

How do you see your understandig of the world broaden? How does one become aware? An interesting take on the matter is the "mythos over logos" argument which states that all of reality has been constructed upon the metaphores of old, the mythos. If so, it follows logicaly that all we know is analogue to these metaphores. This argument may not be as valid as it once was, but it is worth our attention when reflecting upon how one becomes aware and describes reality. One could say that in describing reality you choose only the explanations that corresponds with the contemporary "mythos" and as much as possible avoid descriptions that would be in conflict with these.The implications of this argument is vast, but worth debating! As the proverb goes: "We see want we want to see." Comments?