Paolo Cugini
Although many centuries have
passed since the Greeks developed a philosophical thought based on reason and
sustained by logos, it is possible to affirm that we still have a mythical
approach to reality. It seems like an absurd statement, but it is not so
absurd.
But what exactly is mythical
thought? We think mythically whenever we resort to a narrative that abandons
reasoning to rely on a sacred type of discourse foundation.
It is also important to point
out that in the ancient mindset, myth is not identified with something false.
The philosopher of religion Mircea Eliade reflected extensively on the mythical
structure of ancient thought and arrived at conclusions worth highlighting.
Unlike the modern view of "myth" as something false, Eliade argues
that, for the people of traditional (or "archaic") societies, myth is
absolutely true and sacred. In the origin narrative, myth always refers to a
"creation," recounting how something, whether the entire cosmos or
just a human behavior, came into existence. For Eliade, knowing the origin myth
of an object or animal grants the individual a kind of dominion over it,
allowing its ritual manipulation.
One of Eliade's most famous
concepts is that of Eternal Return, which describes the religious man's desire
to return to the time of origins. Through rites, man not only
"remembers" the myth, but re-actualizes it, becoming contemporary
with the gods or heroes in "primordial time." By living the myth, the
individual leaves linear (profane) time and enters circular (sacred) time,
recovering the fullness of being. Eliade uses the term hierophany to describe
the act of manifestation of the sacred in the profane world. For Eliade, the
sacred is the "reality par excellence," saturated with being and
power. Even in desacralized and modern societies, Eliade notes that myth
survives in a camouflaged form in behaviors such as cinema, literature, and
certain political ideologies, which offer temporary escapes from linear
history. If at the time of the birth of philosophy mythical thought had a
heuristic basis, today we can clearly say that resorting to myth is a form of
mental laziness, which manifests a lack of knowledge of reality.
For Paul Ricoeur, myth is not
a false scientific explanation, but a symbolic narrative that reveals profound
truths about the human condition, especially about fallibility and the origin
of evil. He argues that philosophy must take a detour through the hermeneutics
(interpretation) of myths to understand what pure, abstract reflection cannot
grasp on its own.
Ricoeur defines myth as a
"symbol developed in narrative form." While a symbol is a unit of
double meaning (a literal meaning that points to a latent meaning), myth sets
these symbols in motion through a story. By losing its claim to physically
explain the world, myth gains a function of exploring human reality,
manifesting what Ricoeur calls the "language of confession"
(experiences of guilt, stain, and sin). The philosopher argues that we do not
have direct access to the "self" or to being; we need the mediation
of cultural works, such as myths, to understand ourselves.
Taking into account the
reflections of Eliade and Ricoeur, we can affirm that mythical thought still
lingers in culture, not only in the West. Furthermore, the thought that
develops in Christianity is not mythical, but philosophical. It is not a
coincidence that the Church Fathers of the first centuries, in trying to
resolve the problems that the identity of Jesus brought to the daily reflection
of the first communities, used many concepts from Greek philosophy. Following
Jesus demands a rational, logical choice, more than a mythical one. It is not a
coincidence that the first community of John identifies Jesus not with myth,
but with the logos. “In the beginning was the Word” (John 1:1).
Jesus gave a definitive
rational answer to our human questions. Despite this, even today, most
Catholics enter the religious sphere not driven by reason, but by feeling; not
through rational and philosophical reflection, but through mythical thought—not
in the sense that Eliade and Ricoeur pointed out, but as an irrational
approach, bringing unsustainable arguments into the debate. When mythical
thought identifies with our irrational side, religion becomes a space of
intolerance, because one no longer adheres to the divine through a path that
involves the totality of the person, but adheres to a religious form,
identifying with it and defending it tooth and nail, not participating with
love and tenderness. When religion becomes a space of intolerance, of
opposition to science, God disappears from the map, and elements that only
psychiatry can resolve come into play.
.jpeg)
