An Apology for Mythology

An Apology for Mythology By Joseph Dalton Wright Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Degree of Bachelor Arts in the Integral Curriculum of Liberal Arts at Saint Mary’s College April 16, 2012 Advisor: Ms. Theodora Carlile Wright, 1 “Whence a lover of myth, too, is in a sense a philosopher, for a myth is composed of wonders” -Aristotle, Metaphysics1 1 Metaphysics, Book A, Chapter Two (Aristotle 1966) Wright, 2 Introduction What is the self, how does it operate? This question is the theme of Socrates’ final conversation in Plato’s dialogue Phaedo. The first word of the dialogue is αὐτός2 (self), and in the first sentence Plato connects this issue with the mixture of opposites. “Were you with Socrates yourself, Phaedo, on the day when he drank the poison in prison, or did you hear about it from someone else?” (Phaedo, 57A) Socrates drank the hemlock and fulfilled the Athenian court’s verdict. Plato uses the word φάρµακον3, which in Greek can mean both medicine and poison. If the φάρµακον is medicine, then Socrates is actually curing an illness, and liberating himself from disease, but is the hemlock medicine or poison? The φάρµακον embodies a critical question: how can opposites reconcile and collaborate? The opposing meanings meet, mix, and coordinate in the Φάρµακον; a unity-in-opposition of medicine and poison. Plato knows relationships like this are troubling, but the agony is beneficial, for the test reveals how our consciousness connects and creates. Socrates presents several opposites as candidates for reconciliation throughout the dialogue, such as pleasure and pain, and one and many. However, the strangest pair is λόγος4 and µυθος5. Λόγος and µυθος originally expressed the same thing: word. However, over time they developed differently. On the one hand λόγος comes to mean argument or reason itself, and is the common tool of sophists, rhetoricians, and philosophers. Λόγος aims at discovering the essence of a thing, and tries to determine whether a proposition or 2 Aὐτός, αὐτή, αὐτό, I. Pron. Of 3rd pers., self (Liddell and Scott) 3 Φάρμακον, I. a medicine, drug, remedy II. A poisonous drug, drug, poison (Liddell and Scott) 4 Λόγος, ό, (λέγω) I. the word by which the inward thought is expressed: also II. The inward thought or reason itself. (Liddell and Scott) 5 Μυθος, ό, I. anything delivered by word of mouth, word, speech(Liddell and Scott) Wright, 3 hypothesis is reasonable. On the other, µυθος becomes the property of poets and playwrights. Myth expresses a mystery. The two words change over time with the occupations employing them, disassociate, and become traditional opposites; for poets and philosophers conflict. The poet sees the philosopher as already dead, hyper-rational, and a rejecter of the body. O human being, desiring great wisdom from us, how happy you will become among Athenians and the Greeks!—if you have a good memory, and are a thinker, and have hard labor in your soul, and aren’t wearied either by standing or walking, and aren’t too much annoyed when you shiver with cold, and have no desire to dine, and keep away from wine and gymnastics and other mindless things, and believe that it is best (which is likely for a shrewd man) to win by being active and taking counsel and warring with your tongue. (Chorus, Aristophanes’ Clouds 411-419) Conversely, the philosopher is suspicious of the poet, for poets are merely mimetic, and do not attempt to discover the causes of things. “Whoever talks in that way is unable to make a distinction and to see that in reality a cause is one thing, and the thing without which the cause could never be a cause is quite another thing.” (Phaedo, 39B) The philosopher and poet are at odds, and therefore so are λόγος and µυθος. Plato challenges this segregation, however, and unites them in philosophy. Socrates is unquestionably a master of argument, employing rhetoric and dialectic, but in the Phaedo he is also poetic. Socrates incorporates λόγος and µυθος in this dialogue, and this fact suggests that they are both essential to philosophy and to discern the self, but why? What is one lacking that the other possesses? Why does Socrates propose a philosophy that combines something rational, such as λόγος, with Wright, 4 something mystical, such as µυθος? This question also perplexes Cebes, a sharp and keen companion of Socrates: Several others have asked about the poems you have composed, the metrical versions of Aesop’s fables and the hymn to Apollo, and Evenus asked me the day before yesterday why you who never wrote any poetry before, composed these verses after you came to prison. (Phaedo, 60D) Cebes desires clarification; he wants to know why Socrates, a lover of wisdom, thinks myths are philosophic expressions. Similarly, we must also try to unravel this obscure relationship and discover why Socrates reconnects λόγος and µυθος. For both are necessary to investigate what the self is. Purpose of Essay This essay investigates the relationship between λόγος and µυθος. A relationship is unclear when one of the two objects lacks a definition. This is precisely the case with myth. Defining myth is difficult because its function is not apparent. What a myth actually expresses is mysterious, and, therefore, potentially can accomplish anything. Some may claim myth is definable, but they are really only defining their perception of it. Indeed, myths are not definable, limitless. To grasp how myth and reason relate in philosophy, we must build an idea of myth by examining how Plato uses myth. This essay’s aim is to clarify how Plato uses myth, not to provide theories which do not stem from the text. Doing so would be detrimental to a proper interpretation of the dialogue. Instead, the essay will construct a concept of myth from the text. In his Classical Mythology, R. J. Lenardon discusses the impossibility of establishing a universal theory for myth: Wright, 5 One thing is certain: no single theory of myth can cover all myths. The variety of traditional tales is matched by the variety of their origins and significance, so that any monolithic theory cannot succeed in achieving universal applicability. (Lenardon 1977) Therefore, conforming Plato’s myths to a foreign theory for myth is irresponsible. Similarly, we must abandon all previous prejudices for myth. However, if a reader requires some kind of concept before proceeding, I suggest adopting a very broad understanding of myth as a story or fable. This establishes something simple to build with, without restricting growth. The normal procedure for studying the relationship between two objects calls for a study of each alone, by itself. This process is analogous to a jigsaw puzzle, for an understanding of each piece is crucial before fitting them together. However, this essay cannot offer such a luxury. For Plato weaves the development of philosophy and myth together. Each myth refers back to philosophy and forces us to recognize their connection. One introduces, informs, and elaborates on the other. The investigation is especially difficult because Plato does not deal with philosophy and myth in a similar manner. On the one hand is philosophy. Socrates clearly communicates, that is in the Phaedo, what philosophy is, what it studies, and how philosophers ought to live. On the other is myth, which does not receive any kind of articulation. Further, Socrates uses myths as foundations for his arguments, yet he does not elaborate on their purpose. Plato is placing emphasis on myth while leaving it elusive. Plato does this in order to develop our understanding of myth, and force us to constantly consider what myths are and what they can achieve. Therefore, before grasping how philosophy and myth unite, we must examine how they develop. Wright, 6 To grasp how philosophy and myth relate, we must adhere to the way Plato arranges the Phaedo. For myth develops with philosophy as the dialogue progresses. Proceeding this way ensures a proper navigation through the course set for myth. Before this essay studies the Phaedo, however, it will discuss how the dialogue relates to the Apology and Republic. This inclusion will provide more material for analysis, cement the necessity for an inquiry, and offer insight into Socrates’ actions; exposing what he attempts to accomplish. If we can determine why philosophy and myth must collaborate, we may, as the first line suggests, begin to discern the self. The Defense for Philosophy Is philosophy beneficial? This is the question which forces Socrates into an Athenian court to defend his lifestyle. Philosophy’s value is not readily apparent to the city or individual, and this is why philosophic activity requires an apology. The Apology’s name6 suggests it is the critical defense for philosophy, but it cannot be. The arguments in Socrates’ speech are inadequate, and they do not properly treat the subject. Assistance is necessary, and the Republic and Phaedo provide it. All three dialogues comprise Socrates’ apology for philosophy. Let us demonstrate this by examining the Apology. The Apology is Socrates’ rhetorical speech at his trial; as such it cannot be a complete defense for philosophy: “How you, men of Athens, have been affected by my accusers, I do not know” (Apology, 17A). To adequately defend philosophy, Socrates must persuade others of its instrumental and intrinsic value, and this requires a leisurely 6 ἀπολόγία, ἡ, I. A speech in defense, defense (Liddell and Scott) Wright, 7 conversation. Since it is the city’s official business, however, a trial is the furthest thing from leisure. Socrates cannot carefully discuss what philosophy is, or if the philosopher is just; he is surrounded by jurors, and time is constricting him.

Load more