Is Mythos Myth, and Logos Reason? : The Rise and Fall of Mytho-Logos in the 20th Century

Seok-Woo Kwon
{"title":"Is Mythos Myth, and Logos Reason? : The Rise and Fall of Mytho-Logos in the 20th Century","authors":"Seok-Woo Kwon","doi":"10.19116/theory.2022.27.3.35","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In my previous article, “Is Mythos Myth, and Logos Reason: Etymological and Philological Reflections”(2020), I observed the foundation of ancient Greek philosophy in its relationship with the notions of mythos and logos. I argued that the history of Western philosophy in its initiatory phase took the format of progress “from mythos to logos,” and that this framework holds Homeros and Hesiodos totally different from Socrates and Plato, giving rise to the bifurcation of mythos and logos, and further accounting for the concomitant conceptual differentiation between myth and reason/rationality which has gone around until recently without enough critical assessment. In this article, I seek to argue continuously that misunderstandings come to light when one reaches the conclusion that in the ancient Greek society the words mythos and logos referred respectively to established authoritative speech and emergent reasonable discourse or theory — that neither of them really had anything to do with the fictional properties, or the degree of fictionality, of the messages under consideration. The English translation of mythos into myth — or for that matter, into its later 19th-century Japanese rendering, “神話,” — may well be held responsible for the prevalent false notion of mythos. In our age when Reason no more seems to be reason, and Enlightenment no more enlightenment, everything strikes us as a myth, posing questions as to the real nature, or even the adequacy, of the mythos-logos dichotomy. Horkheimer and Adorno did this kind of job while questioning and emphasizing the need of both in the fascist Germany where logos-reason proved to be nothing but a madness.","PeriodicalId":409687,"journal":{"name":"The Criticism and Theory Society of Korea","volume":"86 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Criticism and Theory Society of Korea","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19116/theory.2022.27.3.35","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In my previous article, “Is Mythos Myth, and Logos Reason: Etymological and Philological Reflections”(2020), I observed the foundation of ancient Greek philosophy in its relationship with the notions of mythos and logos. I argued that the history of Western philosophy in its initiatory phase took the format of progress “from mythos to logos,” and that this framework holds Homeros and Hesiodos totally different from Socrates and Plato, giving rise to the bifurcation of mythos and logos, and further accounting for the concomitant conceptual differentiation between myth and reason/rationality which has gone around until recently without enough critical assessment. In this article, I seek to argue continuously that misunderstandings come to light when one reaches the conclusion that in the ancient Greek society the words mythos and logos referred respectively to established authoritative speech and emergent reasonable discourse or theory — that neither of them really had anything to do with the fictional properties, or the degree of fictionality, of the messages under consideration. The English translation of mythos into myth — or for that matter, into its later 19th-century Japanese rendering, “神話,” — may well be held responsible for the prevalent false notion of mythos. In our age when Reason no more seems to be reason, and Enlightenment no more enlightenment, everything strikes us as a myth, posing questions as to the real nature, or even the adequacy, of the mythos-logos dichotomy. Horkheimer and Adorno did this kind of job while questioning and emphasizing the need of both in the fascist Germany where logos-reason proved to be nothing but a madness.
神话是神话,逻各斯是理性?: 20世纪神话逻各斯的兴衰
在我之前的一篇文章《神话是神话,逻各斯是理性:语源学和语言学的反思》(2020)中,我观察了古希腊哲学的基础与神话和逻各斯概念的关系。我认为,西方哲学史在其初始阶段采取了“从神话到逻各斯”的进步形式,这种框架认为荷马和赫西俄多斯与苏格拉底和柏拉图完全不同,从而产生了神话和逻各斯的分歧,并进一步解释了神话和理性/理性之间伴随的概念差异,这种差异直到最近还没有得到足够的批判性评估。在这篇文章中,我试图继续论证,当人们得出这样的结论时,误解就会暴露出来:在古希腊社会,神话和逻各斯这两个词分别指的是既定的权威言论和新兴的合理话语或理论——它们都与虚构的属性或虚构的程度没有任何关系。英语对神话的翻译——或者就此而言,19世纪后期的日语翻译“神话”——很可能要为神话的普遍错误观念负责。在我们这个时代,理性似乎不再是理性,启蒙似乎也不再是启蒙,一切事物都给我们以神话的印象,使我们对神话-逻各斯二分法的真实性质,甚至是否适当提出疑问。霍克海默和阿多诺做了这样的工作,同时质疑和强调了在法西斯德国,标志理性被证明只是一种疯狂的需要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信