The time of Losev's first publication about the myth. Alexey Losev "Dialectics of Myth" (summary)
Losev, like Kasirrer, develops the semantic idea of culture. The life of primitive man is connected with nature - the world of living beings. Man tried to explain the world, to embody the unity of its connection with nature. J. Vico proposed the philosophy of myth. Myths are the fantasies of ancient people; they intuitively felt the presence of higher powers and came up with poetic images.
Taylor suggested looking for the roots of myth in animism - the endowment of souls in inanimate objects.
Jung. The root of myth is in particular the worldview of primitive people (from feelings, experiences).
In the 20th century - new approaches: 1) Malinovsky - an expression of faith (myth). 2) Levi-Stras - there is mythological thinking - the collective unconscious.
Inside is a symbol. in the village
Myth is an expanded realized symbol, communication between man and God (openness of the personality of God in energy or the implementation of the symbol). The closest thing to absolute myth (or communication between man and God) is Orthodoxy, but this communication is distorted, since name-glorification has not yet been developed. Distortion can be removed in the real speech of a real subject when structuring pure experience using the dialectical-phenomenological method. Phenomenology here is a simple description (by no means in the sense of Husserl’s philosophy), and dialectics is the magic of communication with God, communication, but not only a logical construction.
General field of the problem
Losev begins his work on understanding myth at the turn of the transition of Russian-language philosophy to the power of ideology - and accordingly resolves the questions that arise. It is not easy to understand his system (which is not simple in itself), because it is covered by a hidden philosophy, and the surface of the text sometimes bears a random character, introduced by ideological correction. But be that as it may, its problematics do not go beyond the problems that were obvious at that time: the philosophy of the late 19th and early 20th centuries was faced with a serious task. Denaturalization of the subject area due to the introduction of several critical factors - criticism of syllogistic logic and the construction of new, predicatory logics (pure logic), as well as criticism of psychological theories that replaced the theory of consciousness at that time - led to the loss of the subject of philosophical research and aggravated the problem of the "main question of philosophy ", hiding at its core the uncertainty of consciousness as a phenomenon. The solution to this problem consisted in redefining the concept of “phenomenon” and resolution on the basis of the newly given definition of the problems of “conscious”, “pre-conscious” and “extra-conscious”.
For many philosophers at the beginning of the century, this trend determined their desire to understand the problem of myth. For Russian-speaking philosophers, this problem became the problem of mystical revelations. For Losev, this problem of myth became the problem of his entire philosophical concept, which merged interest in myth as a form of consciousness and in mythology as a form of communication with God. How does he determine the method of working in such a complex problem field? “A myth must be taken as a myth, without reducing it to something that is not itself. Only having such a pure definition and description of a myth can one begin to explain it from one or another heterogeneous point of view.” What is a myth?
Before we try to define myth, we must have some intuition of myth, for the presence of myth precedes logical operations with it. Therefore, Losev first of all gives a phenomenological description of myth through an indication of what myth is not, and this is the delimitation of other forms of consciousness and creativity in the process of communication with myth. Like no one else, the ancient philologist Losev had access to visions of myth from within the myth itself, moreover, prepared by long and complex work with the myths themselves (mythological texts from antiquity to the theory of socialism). And one can even say that the dialectics of myth is not so much a description of the interpretation of God by any personality, but rather a description of Losev’s interpretation of the myth-God and the implementation of the myth in the personality of Losev the philosopher.
Subjecting to analysis some provisions of science and philosophy, in which myth was recorded as “other to itself,” Losev comes to the conclusion that there are six theses that alternately phenomenologically detail the concept of myth:
"...1. Myth is not an invention or fiction, it is not a fantastic invention, but logically, that is, first of all dialectically, a necessary category of consciousness and being in general.
2. Myth is not an ideal being, but a vitally felt and created material reality.
3. Myth is not a scientific, and in particular a primitive scientific, construction, but a living subject-object interaction that contains its own, extra-scientific, purely mythical truth, reliability, fundamental regularity and structure.
4. Myth is not a metaphysical construction, but a real, materially and sensually created reality, which is at the same time detached from the usual course of phenomena, and, therefore, contains varying degrees of hierarchy, varying degrees of detachment.
5. Myth is neither a diagram nor an allegory, but a symbol; and, already being a symbol, it can contain schematic, allegorical and life-symbolic layers.
6. Myth is not a poetic work, but its detachment is the elevation of isolated and abstract things into an intuitive-instinctive and primitive-biological sphere related to the human subject, where they are united into one inseparable, organically fused unity.”
The destruction by the dialectical method of metaphysical-naturalistic dualism, still expressed in simple negative phenomenological descriptions of myth, leads Losev to a clearer and more precise definition of myth. "...Myth is such a dialectically necessary category of consciousness and being (1), which is given as a material-vital reality (2) of subject-object, structurally executed (in a certain image) mutual communication (3), where it is detached from isolated abstract thingness life (4) symbolically (5) is transformed into a pre-reflective-instinctive, intuitively understood intellectual-energetic face (6)". Even shorter: myth is an intelligently given symbol of life, the need for which is dialectically obvious. Even more clearly: myth is the symbolically given intelligence of life. And for Losev, the symbolically realized intelligentsia is a personality, and, therefore, a myth is a personality, a personal being or an image of a personal being, the face of a personality.
But in what sense is personality? How is a person's face determined? Not as a substantial thing, but only as “energetic self-affirmation of the personality,” “...affirmation in its identifying and expressive functions,” “...an image, picture, semantic phenomenon of the personality.” Myth as a personality, or, more correctly, personality as a myth there is, in familiar terms, only personal being, born and becoming, that is, given historically. And this historically means - in time. In what time is mythological formation located? The answer is obvious - in mythological. And Losev pays special attention to the dialectics of mythological time, developed in detail in Ancient Cosmos. Time, according to Losev, is something not temporary, that is, eternal: the paradox of time is that it has no end, that is, infinite, therefore eternal. However, eternity itself is given immediately, while time is fluid. In this sense “time is the illogical becoming of eternity”, “where limitless becoming and eternal self-presence are one and the same” Time in this sense is heterogeneous. Different time spaces can have different rates of time flow. And myth thus has a different rate of formation in different personal realizations. And this also leads to the emergence and formation of various mythological systems. “One and the same thing, one and the same person can, therefore, be represented and depicted in infinitely different forms, depending on the plane of spatio-temporal existence in which we think of it.” 2 Myth is in such a system a personal being, given historically, but is not a historical event as such. History has three obvious layers of comprehension (and understood precisely from the point of view of personal existence) - natural-material, which is a collection of facts; a layer of understood facts, that is, facts of consciousness that provide factual material for the formation of consciousness, and a layer of historical self-awareness. History is for itself both an object and a subject, an object of its own consciousness. “History is self-consciousness becoming, i.e. nascent, maturing and dying self-consciousness.” History is the creation of consciously expressive facts, “but what is creatively given and actively expressed self-consciousness? This is the word.” So, myth is always a word, “myth is a given personal story in words.” In such a concept of myth (and therefore of the world), in a unique way, seemingly opposite, contradictory and irreducible teachings were mixed and synthesized, the understanding of which leads researchers to various deductions of the “main Losev formula”. However, Losev's teaching is not the sum of phenomenology and dialectics that gives symbolism; and not the addition of name-glorification, sophiology and symbolism, which gives hesychasm, but hesychasm realized by the method of phenomenological dialectics. This unusual confusion leads Losev to synthesize in one category the concepts of personality, history, words, ... and this category is “miracle”. The dialectic of myth as a miracle is a pure description of the phenomenon of myth in itself, considered from the point of view of myth itself, where a miracle is the coincidence of the randomly occurring empirical history of a person with his ideal task. “Myth is a miracle” - this is the formula that covers all the antinomies and antitheses considered. What ideal task are we talking about? What kind of expediency is this? Losev identifies four types of expediency: 1) logical, which results in an organism; 2) practical or volitional, which results in technical perfection (for example, morality); 3) aesthetic, which results in a work of art; 4) and mythical or personal, which results in a miracle. Mythical expediency is the conceivability of a thing in relation to its ideal-personal existence, and such conceivability is absolutely applicable to any thing. “The whole world and all its constituent moments, and everything living and inanimate, are equally a myth and equally a miracle.” The final dialectical formula of a myth is as follows: “A myth is a given wonderful personal story in words. This is all I can say about myth." On the logical conclusion of "Dialectics of Myth"
Despite the fact that Losev, by his own admission, exhausts all aspects of the question of mythical consciousness, the dialectic of myth does not end. The resulting category of myth as a synthesis of four concepts (personality, history, miracle and word) is not clear enough for the everyday understanding of myth (and Losev’s task was precisely to reveal the myth from within the myth itself, that is, to bring the concept of myth to meaningfulness in everyday terms). Taking the first and last categories denoting myth, namely word and personality, Losev points out that myth is nothing more than a word about personality, a word of personality and a word that expresses and manifests personality. And what is a word that is original, unique and not related to any other thing other than a name? The name is what is expressed in the personality, reveals the personality and what the personality is to another. So, myth is a name. By adding the two remaining categories we achieve an indication of history and miracle. What is a name if not a miracle, since it is unique? And we will call it a magical name, a wonderful name. And history is an indication of the sequence of development, the unfolding of the name. The definition of myth thus receives its final form: myth is an expanded magical name. “This is the final and last core of the myth, and then all other transformations and simplifications should fall silent.” So, myth, understood from within myth, is the final and indivisible semantic point of the myth itself. A myth is nothing more than the myth itself, revealed in itself. What we have learned as a result of long work is the concept of myth. And all subsequent research cannot lie in the plane of research into myth in itself and for itself. All subsequent studies are studies of myth for something else. And here Losev moves on to the problem of studying myth as some absolute reality, which, when applied to something else, gives a real myth, with its strict classification, which includes first the main types of myths, and then specific, individual myths. Losev calls mythology, which exists as the only possible picture of the world, absolute mythology. A mythology that does not understand itself (that is, one that has not completed the procedure that Losev creates in his work, calling it the propaedeutics of myth) is a relative mythology.
Losev's positions:
1) considers myth one of the elements of culture
2) myth is not a subject - but being itself, i.e. myth is objective nature.
3) there are 2 types of mythology (absolute, relative)
Alexey Losev "Dialectics of Myth" (summary)
“Of course, mythology is a fiction if we apply to it the point of view of science, and even then not all science, but only that which is characteristic of a narrow circle of scientists of modern European history of the last two or three centuries. From some arbitrarily taken, completely conventional point of view myth is indeed fiction. However, we agreed to consider myth not from the point of view of any scientific, religious, artistic, social, etc. worldview, but exclusively from the point of view of the myth itself, through the eyes of the myth itself, with mythical eyes. This is where we are interested in myth. And from the point of view of the mythical consciousness itself, in no case can one say that myth is a fiction and a game of fantasy. When the Greek, not in the era of skepticism and the decline of religion, but in the era of the flourishing of religion and myth, spoke about his many. Zeus or Apollo; when some tribes have the custom of wearing a necklace of crocodile teeth to avoid the danger of drowning when crossing large rivers; when religious fanaticism reaches self-torture and even self-immolation; - then it would be very ignorant to assert that the mythical pathogens operating here are nothing more than fiction, pure fiction for these mythical subjects. One would have to be extremely myopic in science, even simply blind, not to notice that myth is (for mythical consciousness, of course) the highest in its concreteness, the most intense and the greatest degree of tension. This is not fiction, but the most vivid and most authentic reality. This is an absolutely necessary category of thought and life, far from any chance and arbitrariness[...]
It is not a fiction, but contains the strictest and most definite structure and is logically, i.e. first of all, the dialectically necessary category of consciousness and being in general[...]
Is there such an abstract, ideal existence as a myth? Of course, it is not in any sense. Myth is not a work or an object of pure thought. Pure, abstract thought is least involved in the creation of myth. Wundt already showed well that the basis of myth is an affective root, since it is always an expression of certain vital and urgent needs and aspirations. To create a myth, the least amount of intellectual effort required. And again, we are not talking about the theory of myth, but about myth itself as such. From the point of view of one theory or another, one can talk about the mental work of the subject creating the myth, about its relationship to other mental factors of myth formation, even about its prevalence over other factors, etc. But, speaking immanently, mythical consciousness is least of all an intellectual and thought-ideal consciousness. Homer (Od. XI, 145 ff.) depicts how Odysseus descends into Hades and revives the souls living there for a short time with blood. There is a well-known custom of twinning through mixing blood from pricked fingers or the custom of sprinkling the blood of a newborn baby, as well as drinking the blood of a killed leader, etc. Let us ask ourselves: is it really some kind of mental-ideal construction of the concept of blood that forces these representatives of mythical consciousness to treat blood in this way? And is the myth about the action of blood really just an abstract construction of one or another concept? We must agree that there is exactly the same amount of thought here as in relation to, for example, the color red, which, as is known, can infuriate many animals. When some savages paint a dead man or smear their faces with red paint before a battle, it is clear that it is not the abstract thought of the color red that is at work here, but some other, much more intense, almost affective consciousness, bordering on magical forms. It would be completely unscientific if we were to interpret the mythical image of the Gorgon, with bared teeth and wildly bulging eyes - this is the embodiment of horror itself and wild, dazzlingly cruel, coldly gloomy obsession - as the result of the abstract work of thinkers who decided to separate the ideal and real, discard everything real and focus on analyzing the logical details of the ideal existence. Despite all the nonsense and complete fantasticality of such a construction, it constantly takes place in various “scientific” presentations... Myth is not an ideal concept, and also not an idea or a concept. This is life itself. For the mythical subject, this is real life, with all its hopes and fears, expectations and despair, with all its real everyday life and purely personal interest. Myth is not an ideal being, but a vitally felt and created, material reality and corporeal, to the point of animality, corporeal reality[...]
Myth is always extremely practical, urgent, always emotional, affective, vital... Myth is saturated with emotions and real life experiences; he, for example, personifies, deifies, honors or hates, maligns... Myth is always synthetically vital and consists of living personalities, whose fate is illuminated emotionally and intimately... Mythical consciousness is completely immediate and naive, generally understandable[...]
I categorically protest against the second pseudoscientific prejudice, which forces us to assert that mythology precedes science, that science emerges from myth, that some historical eras, especially our modern one, are completely uncharacteristic of mythical consciousness, that science defeats myth[...]
If we take real science, i.e. science actually created by living people in a certain historical era, then such a science is absolutely always not only accompanied by mythology, but also actually feeds on it, drawing its initial intuitions from it[...]
Descartes is the founder of modern European rationalism and mechanism, and therefore positivism. Not the pathetic parlor chatter of the 18th century materialists, but, of course, Descartes is the true founder of philosophical positivism. And it turns out that underneath this positivism lies its own specific mythology. Descartes begins his philosophy with universal doubt. Even regarding God, he doubts whether He is also a deceiver. And where does he find support for his philosophy, his already undoubted foundation? He finds it in the "I", in the subject, in thinking, in consciousness, in the "ego", in the "cogito". Why is this so? Why are things less real? Why is God less real, about whom Descartes himself says that this is the clearest and most obvious, the simplest idea? Why not something else? Only because such is his own unconscious creed, such is his own mythology, such is the generally individualistic and subjectivistic mythology that underlies modern European culture and philosophy. Descartes is a mythologist, despite all his rationalism, mechanism and positivism. Moreover, these last features of him can only be explained by his mythology; they only feed on it […]
So: science is not born from myth, but science does not exist without myth, science is always mythological[...]
Science as such cannot destroy the myth in any way. She only realizes him and removes from him a certain rational, for example, logical or numerical, plan[...]
They just don’t want to understand that a myth must be interpreted mythically, that the mythical content of a myth in itself is quite deep and subtle, quite rich and interesting, and that it has meaning in itself, without needing any interpretations or scientific and historical unraveling. Moreover, the Apocalypse is a “revelation”. What kind of revelation will it be if, instead of literal understanding of all these amazing apocalyptic images, we give everyone the right to substitute any historical era or event for any image?[...]
Science is not interested in the reality of its object; and the “law of nature” says nothing about the reality of itself, much less about the reality of things and phenomena that obey this “law.” Needless to say, myth in this respect is completely opposite to the scientific formula. Myth is purely and entirely real and objective; and even in it the question of whether the corresponding mythical phenomena are real or not can never be raised. Mythical consciousness operates only with real objects, with the most concrete and real phenomena. True, in mythical objectivity one can state the presence of different degrees of reality, but this has nothing to do with the absence of any moment of reality in a pure scientific formula. In the mythical world we find, for example, the phenomena of werewolf, facts related to the action of the Invisible Cap, the death and resurrection of people and gods, etc. etc. All these are facts of different tensions of existence, facts of different degrees of reality. But here it is not extra-existence, but the fate of existence itself, the play of different degrees of reality of being itself. There is nothing like this in science. Even if she begins to talk about different tensions in space (as, for example, in the modern theory of relativity), then she is still interested not in this tension itself and not in being itself, but in the theory of this being, the formulas and laws of such a heterogeneous space. Myth is being itself, reality itself, the very concreteness of being[...]
A myth is never just a hypothesis, only a simple possibility of truth... Myth always has an emphasis on facts that exist as facts. Their existence is absolute existence...Myth has its own mythical truth, mythical authenticity. Myth distinguishes or can distinguish the true from the apparent and the imagined from the real. But all this happens not scientifically, but purely mythically[...]
Myth is not a scientific and, in particular, a primitive scientific construction, but a living subject-object interaction that contains its own, extra-scientific, purely mythical truth, reliability and fundamental regularity and structure[...]
Comparing mythology with science and metaphysics, we say that if they are exclusively logically abstract, then mythology, in any case, is the opposite of them, that it is sensual, visual, directly vital and tangible. But does this mean that the sensual, by the mere fact that it is sensual, is a myth, and does this mean that in myth there is absolutely no detachment, absolutely no hierarchy at all? You don’t need to look long into the nature of mythical consciousness to notice that it contains and is essentially inherent in its nature a certain detachment and a certain hierarchy. No matter how realistically Khoma Brut rode a witch, and she rode him, there is still something different here from when people simply ride a horse or a horse is ferried across the river on a ferry. And everyone will say that although myth is sensual and perceptible, tangible, visible, there is still something necessary here, somehow detached from ordinary reality and somehow, perhaps, something higher and deep in the hierarchical series of existence. What kind of detachment this is - we don’t know yet... In mythology there is some kind of unusualness, novelty, unprecedentedness, detachment from the empirical course of phenomena. This probably forced many to identify mythology with metaphysics, for which, as we have now seen, there is absolutely no reason. There is only this very distant similarity that the myth contains a supersensible moment, which appears as something strange and unexpected. But this is far from any metaphysical teaching. Myth is not a metaphysical construction, but is a reality, materially and sensually created, which is at the same time detached from the usual course of phenomena and, therefore, contains varying degrees of hierarchy, varying degrees of detachment[...]
A myth is by no means a scheme. If this were so, then in myth its supersensible, ideal would turn into an abstract idea, and its sensual content would remain insignificant and add nothing new to the abstract idea. Myth always speaks not about mechanisms, but about organisms, and even more than that, about individuals, about living beings. His characters are not abstract ideas and methods of constructing and comprehending sensuality, but this sensuality itself, breathing vital warmth and energy. What is important here is the “external”, “concrete”, “sensual”, “private”, “real”, “figurative”[…]
In myth, direct visibility is what it means: the anger of Achilles is the anger of Achilles, nothing more; Narcissus is a truly real young man Narcissus, at first truly, truly loved by the nymphs, and then truly dying of love for his own image in the water[...]
Myth is neither a diagram nor an allegory, but a symbol. It must be said, however, that the symbolic layer in a myth can be very complex... One and the same expressive form, depending on the way it is related to other semantic expressive or material forms, can be a symbol, a diagram, and an allegory at the same time... Thus, a lion let it be an allegory of proud strength and greatness, and the fox an allegory of cunning. But nothing prevents the allegorical lions and foxes from being executed with all symbolic spontaneity and clarity; this is sometimes achieved even by invariably moralistic fabulists... Therefore, a myth, considered from the point of view of its symbolic nature, can turn out to be both a symbol and an allegory at once. Little of. It may turn out to be a double symbol. The apocalyptic “woman clothed with the sun” is, of course, first of all, a symbol of the first degree, for for the author of this myth it is a living and immediate reality and must be understood completely literally. But, secondly, this is a symbol of the second degree, because, in addition to the immediate figurative meaning, this symbol points to another meaning, which is also a symbol. So, if this is a church, then since this latter is again something undoubtedly symbolic, then in this image we find at least two symbolic layers. These two (or more) symbolic layers can be connected with each other, again symbolically; they can also be connected both allegorically and schematically. This is a matter of analyzing each given myth[...]
Sunlight has a certain mythology. A certain mythology belongs to the blue sky. The green color of the trees, the blue color of distant mountains, the lilac and reddish color of winter twilight - I could depict all this here in detail and clearly. However, you should not get carried away with this in an essay pursuing only fundamental goals. Is it possible to point out the mythology of electric light, since poets, who from time immemorial have sung the praises of colors and colored objects in nature, have not yet treated this mechanically produced light deeply enough. Meanwhile, it has interesting mythological content, which is not noticed by the crowd only due to the lack of taste and interest in living reality. The light of electric bulbs is dead, mechanical light. It does not hypnotize, but only dulls and coarsens the senses. It contains the limitations and emptiness of Americanism, the mechanical and material production of life and heat. It was created by the merchant soul of a modern European businessman, whose feelings are poor and unsubtle, his thoughts are heavy and earthy. There is some kind of pathos of quantity in spite of the irreplaceable and irreducible element of quality, some kind of fundamental middle ground, moderation, constraint, lack of impulses, mental stiffness and odour[...]
Mythical detachment is detachment from the meaning and idea of everyday facts, but not from their factuality. Myth is factual just like all real things; and if there is any difference between mythical reality and actual, material reality, it is not at all that the first is weaker, less intense and massive, more fantastic and ethereal, but rather precisely that it is stronger, often incomparably more intense and massive, more realistic and physical. Therefore, the only form of mythical detachment is detachment from the meaning of things. Things in myth, while remaining the same, acquire a completely special meaning, are subject to a completely special idea, which makes them detached. A carpet is an ordinary thing in everyday life.
The flying carpet is a mythical image. What's the difference between them? Not at all in fact, because in fact the carpet, as it was a carpet, remained so. The difference is that it has received a completely different meaning, a different idea; They began to look at him with completely different eyes[...]
We have the following theses that characterize the essence of myth by distinguishing it from forms of consciousness and creativity that partially coincide with it:
1. Myth is not an invention or fiction, it is not a fantastic invention, but logically, i.e., first of all, a dialectically necessary category of consciousness and being in general.
2. Myth is not an ideal being, but a vitally felt and created material reality.
3. Myth is not a scientific and, in particular, a primitive scientific construction, but a living subject-object interaction that contains its own, extra-scientific, purely mythical truth, reliability, fundamental regularity and structure.
4. Myth is not a metaphysical construction, but a real, materially and sensually created reality, which at the same time is detached from the usual course of phenomena and, therefore, contains varying degrees of hierarchy, varying degrees of detachment.
5. Myth is neither a diagram nor an allegory, but a symbol; and, already being a symbol, it can contain schematic, allegorical and life-symbolic layers.
6. Myth is not a poetic work, but its detachment is the elevation of isolated and abstractly isolated things into an intuitive-instinctive and primitive-biological sphere interrelating with the human subject, where they are united into one inseparable, organically fused unity.
7. Myth is a personal being, or, more precisely, an image of a personal being, a personal form, the face of a personality... Personality is the very essence of a myth[...]
Religion and mythology both live by self-affirmation of the individual. In religion, a person seeks consolation, justification, purification and even salvation. In myth, a person also tries to manifest himself, express himself, and have some kind of story of his own. This common personal basis also makes the divergence of both spheres noticeable. Indeed, in religion we find some kind of special, specific self-affirmation of the individual. This is some kind of fundamental self-affirmation, affirmation of oneself in its ultimate basis, in its primordial existential roots. We will not be mistaken if we say that religion is always one or another self-affirmation of the individual in eternity[...]
Myth as such, pure mythicality as such, should by no means be fundamentally religious at all costs. Thus, religion always lives with questions (or, more precisely, myths) about the Fall, redemption, salvation, sin, justification, purification, etc. Can a myth exist without these problems? Of course, as much as you like. Religion only introduces a certain specific content into a myth, which makes it a religious myth, but the very structure of the myth does not depend at all on whether it is filled with religious or other content. In myth, the individual does not necessarily live by religious self-affirmation in eternity. It lacks the very nerve of religious life - the thirst for salvation and redemption. It is possible, and even has always happened, to have a myth that contains absolutely no indications not only of eternity, but even of sin, redemption, retribution for sins or virtues, etc. In religion, there is always an assessment of the temporary plan from the point of view of eternal or at least future life. Here is the thirst to break through the captivity of sin and death to holiness and immortality. In myth we find in this respect some approach to poetry. He doesn't care what he portrays. The entire myth about the Trojan War is undoubtedly a myth, but almost all of it can be presented in such a way that there will not be a single truly religious moment in it[...]
So, myth is possible without religion. But is religion possible without myth? Strictly speaking, it is impossible. After all, by religion we understand the substantial self-affirmation of the individual in eternal existence. Of course, such self-affirmation may not blossom into a special myth. Fasting and all asceticism are religion, but here special energy-building functions may not work, and pictures reflecting the ascetic life in myth may not appear. However, it must be borne in mind that ascetic life itself is a mythical life. Religion may not reveal its myth for some time. But this is done not because religion itself is not mythical or does not presuppose myth, but only purely temporarily, until it has not yet grown into an independent and integral organism. Religion is a type of myth, namely mythical life, and, moreover, mythical life for the sake of self-affirmation in eternity. Therefore, myth is not religion; the myth covers various other areas; myth can be in science, in art, in religion. But religion cannot exist without myth[...]
If formation and change are the opposite of an idea, then a historicized idea is the opposite of an absolutized idea, and history is the opposite of a dogma. Religious dogma tries to affirm historical (as well as non-historical) facts outside of time, outside of flow, wants to tear them out of the flow of becoming and oppose everything that is fluid. Myth is just fluid, mobile; he specifically treats not about ideas, but about events, and, moreover, pure events, i.e. those that are born, develop and die, without transition to eternity[...]
So, myth is not a historical event as such, but it is always a word. And in the word, the historical event is elevated to the level of self-consciousness. With this attitude we respond to the second of the aporia proposed above (regarding the form of manifestation of personality in myth). The personality is taken historically in myth, and the entire verbal element is taken from its history. This is an explanation of how personality manifests itself in myth[...]
Briefly: a myth is a given personal story in words[...]
A myth is a miracle. A miracle does not mean that the laws of nature are violated or that it cannot be explained by means of science. A phenomenon that absolutely precisely follows from the system of the world mechanism can sometimes be a much greater miracle than one about which it is unknown what mechanism and what laws of nature it follows[...]
Absolutely everything in the world can be interpreted as a real miracle, if only these things and events are considered from the point of view of the original blissful personal self-affirmation. Indeed, in any event such a connection can easily be established. And we often, willy-nilly, establish it, suddenly starting to treat the most ordinary things from some new point of view, interpreting them as mysterious, mysterious, etc. Everyone has experienced this strange feeling when it suddenly becomes strange that people walk, eat, they sleep, are born, die, quarrel, love, etc., when suddenly all this is assessed from the point of view of some other, forgotten and desecrated existence, when all of life suddenly appears as an endless symbol, as a most complex myth, as an amazing miracle. The mechanism itself is wonderful, the very “laws of nature” are mythically wonderful. There is no need for anything specially strange and scary, nothing especially unusual, especially strong, powerful, especially fabulous, for this mythical consciousness to come true and for the wonderful side of life to be appreciated. The simplest, most ordinary and weak, ignorant, etc. are enough for a myth to come true and a miracle to happen. This is how the life of St. Venedikt about his vision of the universe in one ray of light, in one speck of dust... Miraculousness as such is absolutely the same everywhere and that only its object is different. The whole world and all its constituent moments, and everything living and everything inanimate, are equally a myth and equally a miracle... Now we can say this: a myth is a given wonderful personal story in words.”
“Dialectics of Myth” is the last work from Losev’s famous octateuch, published between 1927 and 1930, which provoked his arrest and a ban on publishing his own works. In the eight books, Losev formulates his philosophical credo, which found its final form precisely in the “Dialectics of Myth.” The main problem of Losev's entire philosophical concept was the problem of mystical revelations. His philosophy merged interest in myth as a form of consciousness and in mythology as a form of communication with God. According to Losev, myth is the oldest form of exploration of the world, summarizing in one word the multiple specificities of life, which the philosopher studies consistently dialectically: first through delimitation from close, but still different categories, then from the point of view of its own meaning and internal form. Thus, Losev defines myth as a synthesis of four concepts - personality, history, miracle and word. As a result, the final dialectical form is given: “Myth is this wonderful personal story in words,” “myth is an expanded magical name.”
This small study has as its subject one of the darkest areas of human consciousness, which was previously dealt with mainly by theologians or ethnographers. Both have become sufficiently disgraced that now we can talk about revealing the essence of the myth using theological or ethnographic methods. And the trouble is not that theologians are mystics and ethnographers are empiricists (for the most part, theologians are very bad mystics, trying to flirt with science and dreaming of becoming complete positivists, and ethnographers - alas! - are often very bad empiricists, being in the chains of one or another arbitrary and unconscious metaphysical theory). The trouble is that mythological science has not yet become not only dialectical, but even simply descriptive phenomenological. You still can’t get rid of mysticism, since myth claims to speak about mystical reality, and, on the other hand, no dialectics is possible without facts. But if they believe that the facts of mystical and mythical consciousness that I cite as examples are facts that I myself profess, or that the doctrine of myth consists solely of the observation of facts alone, then it is better for them not to delve into my analysis of myth. It is necessary to wrest the doctrine of myth both from the sphere of reference of theologians and from the sphere of reference of ethnographers; and we must first be forced to take the point of view of dialectics and phenomenological-dialectical purification of concepts, and then let us do whatever we want with the myth. In positively analyzing myth, I did not follow many who now see the positivism of the study of religion and myth in the forced expulsion of everything mysterious and wonderful from both. They want to reveal the essence of a myth, but to do this they first dissect it so that it no longer contains anything fabulous or generally miraculous. This is either dishonest or stupid. As for me, I do not at all think that my research will be better if I say that myth is not myth and religion is not religion. I take the myth as it is, i.e. I want to reveal and positively record what a myth is in itself and how it conceives its wonderful and fabulous nature. But I ask you not to impose on me points of view that are unusual for me and I ask you to take from me only what I give, i.e. only one dialectic of myth.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. A myth is not an invention or fiction, it is not a fantastic invention
II. Myth is not ideal existence
III. Myth is not a scientific and, in particular, a primitive scientific construction
IV. Myth is not a metaphysical construction
V. Myth is neither a diagram nor an allegory
VI. Myth is not a poetic work
VII. Myth is a personal form
VIII. Myth is not a specifically religious creation
IX. Myth is not dogma
X. Myth is not a historical event as such
XI. Myth is a miracle
XII. Review of all dialectical moments of myth from the point of view of the concept of miracle
XIII. The final dialectical formula
XIV. The transition to real mythology and the idea of absolute mythology
Download the e-book for free in a convenient format, watch and read:
Download the book Dialectics of Myth, Losev A.F., 2001 - fileskachat.com, fast and free download.
Download doc
Below you can buy this book at the best price with a discount with delivery throughout Russia.
I looked closely at the book by A.F. Losev’s “Dialectics of Myth” for a long time, but with caution. Once upon a time I started reading it, but quickly gave up, and I avoided it, although I saw mentions of it often. And now, after almost two years, I finally sat down to read and quickly realized that my fears were justified. The book turned out to be, in a significant part, beyond the scope of my educational level, and if I had not previously read Dyakonov, Campbell or Meletinsky on this topic, I think I would hardly have understood anything at all.
1. What is the book about?
It cannot be said that “Dialectics of Myth” is directly devoted to issues of mythology. First of all, this is a philosophical work in which the author considers myth as a philosophical concept. It’s difficult for a non-specialist to read something like this, which is honestly stated in the annotation. The first part of the book is more watery in nature, and therefore it is easier to digest. The second part, especially after the antinomies begin to be understood, alas, is on the verge of my understanding, and without mastering at least the basics of philosophy and logic, by and large, there is nothing to do there. Well, in general, when the author conducts a polemic, for example with Kant, it is quite difficult to understand its essence without knowledge of the latter’s main works, and there are many such places. And yet, based on the knowledge I already had about the myth, it seems that I was still able to keep the main thread of the argument, and it was even interesting. Although, of course, I didn’t understand everything.
But in addition to the special, philosophical layer, the book also has a second layer, which can be called historical-political: in it the author describes the intellectual context of the 20-30s in the USSR, as well as the complex processes that took place in it. The fact that the author wrote “Dialectics of Myth” before entering the camp is very noticeable. A completely different tone, a different attitude towards the Soviet regime, though not in terms of sign, but in terms of “quality”. Losev in it so far appears not from the position of a detached intellectual with an obligatory apologetics for Marxism-Leninism, full of almost undisguised hatred, but as an equal “player”, quite directly and reasonably stating his position, which is extremely unflattering for the Soviet government. And this is precisely what is both understandable and interesting. And about where the legs of the demonization of Soviet power come from, and why in the intellectual environment of that time there was some kind of shock and melancholy from the awareness of the cultural and civilizational impasse in which humanity had found itself, and the fact that there was hope for revolution as a way to resolve it , were not justified.
In general, from a political point of view, the book is quite openly anti-Soviet, in it the author is fully revealed, and now I am surprised not so much by his conclusion, but by how easily he got off in the end. There is some mystery in this. Moreover, as it turned out, there is a second part of the work, the so-called. addition, which was immediately prohibited from publication. In this part, the book became an even bigger break in the pattern for me, but on the other hand, it explained a lot of things.
A separate topic can be highlighted by a detailed consideration of the absurdity from the point of view of philosophy of the concept of “dialectical materialism”. It was almost understandable, interesting, and convincing. Well, by and large, one way or another, Losev always returns to the idea that the way the Soviet state was built in the initial years of Soviet power was a road to nowhere, that the basis of Soviet ideology was laid such a Gordian knot of contradictions that could not be resolved impossible. I think that Bogdanov, Gorky, Lunacharsky, and, in their own way, Mayakovsky and many other revolutionary intellectuals struggled with the same problem. Stalin dealt with the knot of contradictions simply: he cut it, which made it possible to build a powerful state, win the war, fly into space, and then... crumble into dust.
The author himself, which also turned out to be surprising for me, acts not as a conservative, but rather as an ideological revolutionary, although not without “specifics”. For example, here are a couple of quotes:
- “Philosophers and monks are beautiful, free, ideal, wise. Workers and peasants are ugly, slaves at heart and consciousness, routinely boring, mean, stupid.”
- “I... assert that the feudal system and its ideology did not strive for the exploitation of the working people, but for the truth - as, of course, as it was understood then.”
- “The most natural thing would be for humanity, if it is already standing at the stage of feudalism, then to continue to stand there, improving the shortcomings arising from the natural shortcomings of human nature.”
Losev Alexey Fedorovich - Russian philosopher and philologist. After a scandalous attempt to publish “Dialectics of Myth” (1930), at the 16th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks, L. Kaganovich was called an enemy of the people and was arrested on April 18, 1930. Sentenced to 10 years in the camps “for anti-Soviet activities and participation in a church-monarchist organization.” 1930 - 1932 spent in prison. Thanks to the efforts of Maxim Gorky’s wife, he was released early. He was able to publish his works only after 1953, having managed to publish over 700 works, including more than 40 monographs. A. Losev died in 1988. He was buried in Moscow at the Vagankovskoye cemetery.
3. How and to whom it is useful
Here, as I wrote above, there are three points: firstly, the book will certainly be of interest to those who are trying to understand the concepts of myth and mythology and their place in culture. Secondly, it seems to me that it will simply be of interest to philosophers. By her own. Like cognac and cigars. Well, thirdly, the book will be of interest to those who study the history of the USSR of the 20-30s, questions of the causes of the collapse of the USSR, the synthesis of communism and religion, and, in general, the alternative development of culture and civilization.
But in general, Losev and his books are a whole universe. I think just from the story of the publication of “Dialectics of Myth” you can write an exciting adventure novel. And the author himself is shrouded in so many secrets that you can’t even get your hands on it, just a little digging, and things begin to open up that you want to put everything aside and start unraveling this tangle of mysteries and strange coincidences.
4. Disadvantages
Much of the book is not for the general reader. For high-quality assimilation of the text, a good knowledge of logic and the fundamentals of philosophy is necessary. I'm bad at this, so I had a hard time reading it. In addition, Losev’s later books seem to me more convincing, connected, and perhaps more complete. “Dialectics of Myth,” in my opinion, was written in an overly emotional and chaotic manner, which, in fact, is well illustrated by the history of its creation and publication. Well, in general, in the desire to more clearly define his “sarcasm”, the author at times simply goes too far. For example, this happens in the case of an attempt to substantiate the divine nature of any movement “IX (Myth is not a dogma).V (Soul and body)”. But perhaps the whole point is that I simply do not have enough education to understand what the author of the book is talking about.
5. Verdict
One way or another, the book turned out to be useful for me, even at that superficial level of perception, which is only now accessible to me. Now I just have to sort through the extracts, and maybe I’ll understand something else from them. And so, of course, you need to re-read it after some time.
1. A.F. Losev “Dialectics of Myth” / Comp., compilation. text, total ed., A. A. Taho-Godi, V. P. Troitsky.—M.: Mysl, 2001.—558, ISBN 5-24440969-9
<…>For a mythical subject, myth is not a fiction, but a genuine necessity<…>. This is his direct and naive view of life.<…>We see what the true dialectical nature of myth is and what the true dialectical necessity of myth itself is. Myth is dialectically necessary to the extent that it is a personal and, therefore, historical being, and personality is only a further necessary dialectical category after meaning (ideas) and intelligence. Within itself, myth contains the dialectic of a primordial, pre-historical personality that has not passed into the formation of a personality and a historical personality that is becoming empirically random. Myth is an indivisible synthesis of these two spheres.
<…>we have distinguished mythical truth from logical truth, from practical truth, and from aesthetic truth.<…>. Myth undoubtedly lives by some kind of its own understanding of truth; and it consists in establishing the degree of correspondence between the fluid empiricity of the individual and its ideal, pristine pristineness.<…>The hierarchy of mythical existence is defined, derived and justified.
Myth is neither a diagram nor an allegory, but a symbol.<…>A symbol is a thing that means what it essentially is.<…>
Myth is not a poetic work, and its detachment has nothing to do with the detachment of the poetic image.<…>The relationship between mythology and poetry can be formulated even more simply and precisely. Poetry lives by being detached from things and by “disinterested pleasure.”<…>Myth is poetic detachment, given as a thing. In itself, the poetic image is “detached” from things and is not interested in them. Let us now affirm this very detachment from things as a thing, this very disinterest as interest, and we get a myth. Poetry and art in general are not considered a miracle only because it is considered not real, not material, but fundamentally fictitious and fictitious, created as if only for the delight of the senses and for viewing this or that existence through it.<…>Science, morality and art are intelligent constructs; mythology is actually a construction that implements this or that intelligentsia.
Myth and religion. Perhaps even more important are the clarifications that we must now make to our statement that myth is not a specifically religious creation.<…>
Science is built on knowledge. Morality is built on will. Art is built on feeling. Science, morality, art - three types of creative intelligentsia, connected among themselves by an indestructible dialectical connection.
But what happens to these areas when we begin to think of them not as forms of mere intelligence, but as forms of actually substantially realized intelligence, as forms of substantial-personal being? Then we move on to religion. Religion, after all, lays claim to the substantial self-affirmation of the individual, i.e. for self-affirmation in eternity.<…>And it is not difficult to guess that the embodiment of knowledge and science in this area will be nothing more than theology; The embodiment of will and behavior, normalized activity and, in this sense, “morality” will be religious behavior and, in particular and mainly, ritual. And what will be the embodiment in the religious sphere of the third stage of the intelligentsia, pure feeling, the objective analogue of which is the artistic image? I claim that this is the sphere of myth, mythology. After all, the artistic image is a return to naive reality, when the subject’s efforts to find the laws of random existence have already ended and calm has been achieved after endless efforts to harmonize his behavior with the norm. In pure feeling, this subjective correlate of the artistic image, the naive balance of the intelligentsia is again achieved, and a person, as it were, again becomes a child for whom all the problems of knowledge and all norms of behavior have been resolved. In myth we also find the dissolution of the teaching, “theoretical” moment of religion (which creates theology in its isolated manifestation) in the “practical” sphere (which creates ritual), i.e. in some living action and a series of corresponding actions and events. In other words, what we get is a fundamentally religiously meaningful behavior or the course of life in general, or a sacred history. And this is mythology. In the intelligentsia, therefore, the place of mythology is after theology and religious behavior, or ritual, i.e. it is justified as a dialectical synthesis of both. There is the same dialectical relationship between mythology and theology as between art and science, and between mythology and ritual as between art and morality. In the same way, it must be said that the relationship of theology and religion is dialectically the same as the relationship of knowledge, science to life, and the relationship of ritual to religion is the same as the relationship of morality to life, and, finally, the relationship of mythology to religion - the same as the relationship of art to life.
<…>Mythology - dialectically - is impossible without religion, for it is nothing more than the reflection of pure feeling and its objective correlate - the artistic image - in the religious sphere.<…>But mythology in itself is not religion, it is not a specifically religious creation, and religion itself is by no means just mythology. Religion is, we said, a substantial affirmation in eternity. Consequently, it must create such forms where this statement actually occurs. In other words, the essence of religion is sacraments. They are not theological teaching, much less science and knowledge; they are not a ritual, much less standardized behavior and morality; they are, finally, not mythology, not sacred history, and certainly not art, not artistic symbols, not feeling, even the purest, most sublime and most religious. The sacraments are forms of substantial affirmation of the personality as such in eternity. In Christianity, a sacrament is possible only because the Church exists. The Church is the Body of Christ. Christ is the God-man, i.e. the one and one substance of God as substance and man as substance. Consequently, it is quite clear that the sacrament is a universal emanation of God-manhood, a continuous possibility and support for the substantial affirmation of man in eternity. That is why we said earlier, when analyzing the relationship between mythology and religion, that in comparison with the latter, mythology is much closer to poetry. Thus, theology is religious science, ritual is religious behavior, mythology is religious poetry and art. Religion itself is neither one nor the other, nor the third. And the widespread attempts to reduce religion either to science and knowledge, or to morality and behavior, or to aesthetics and feelings are pathetic, ridiculous, and helpless.
Religion is the background of mythology. It (self-affirmation - V.A.) is always meant in one way or another in myth, but myth itself is only its meaning, its idea, its image and face, and not itself. A myth in itself - as an image, as a painting - may not contain problems of substantial reconstruction of personality. Thus, the mythical image of Odysseus resurrecting the souls of underground inhabitants with blood, of course, suggests that the mythical consciousness that gave birth to him had the intuition of eternal life, resurrection, spiritual state and omnipotence even of everything inanimate (for example, blood), etc. All this is the intuition of some individual aspects of the personality in the aspect of its absolute self-affirmation. However, no questions are raised about this latter as such and about its real relationship to earthly events in this myth. The myth is limited to a pictorial description of the events themselves and is not included in their religious value. This does not, of course, prevent other myths from entering into it. But usually, in order for a myth to be formed, the elements of the primordial absolute self-affirmation of the individual only in the form of a background, in the form of something implied in itself, are completely sufficient. The mythical consciousness, which gave rise to the mentioned myth of Odysseus, uses religious-mystical intuitions without entering into their own mythical or non-mythical image; it uses them purely instrumentally and only to give a picture of their very, very partial application, with all attention focused on these depicted facts and pictures themselves. True religion would not be such a myth about Odysseus, but, for example, myths associated with the mysteries. Thus, the myth of Demeter and the abduction of Kore, which lies at the basis of the Eleusinian Mysteries, is no longer a myth in the proper sense, but a religion, expressed, however, mythically (it could be expressed in another way, for example, philosophically - among the Pythagoreans and Plato, artistically - among tragedians, etc.).
Myth, further, we said, is not a dogma, but history.<…> Myth is not a historical event as such, but it is always a word. The word is the synthesis of personality as an ideal principle and its immersion in the depths of historical formation. The word is a newly constructed and understood personality. A person can understand himself anew only by coming into contact with another being and pushing away, distinguishing himself from it, i.e., first of all, by becoming historical. The word is a historically established personality that has reached the degree of distinguishing itself as a self-conscious personality from any other being. The word is the expressed self-consciousness of a person, a person who has understood his intelligent nature - a nature that has come to an actively developing self-consciousness. Personality, history and word are a dialectical triad in the depths of mythology itself. This is the dialectical structure of mythology itself, the structure of myth itself. That is why every real mythology contains 1) the doctrine of the primordial light being, or simply the primordial essence, 2) theogonic and generally historical process, and, finally, 3) the primordial essence that has reached the degree of self-awareness of itself in other existence. Here there is a great divergence between different religious systems; and by the nature of the fulfillment of this intra-mythical triad one can judge the main idea underlying this or that mythology. Thus, one idea is expressed in Greek mythology, where Uranus and Gaia arise from Chaos and the process reaches the light kingdom of the Olympian gods; another idea underlies the two-part mythology of Christianity, where the triadic division in the sphere of the Divine (Holy Trinity) and separately the mythical history of creation are given: the primordial sinless state of the ancestors, the Fall and the transition to evil plurality, redemption and restoration of the lost union, a new and already final falling away and a new, already final resurrection and salvation. Old Adam, new Adam, satanic malice of the spirit of destruction, the Last Judgment, Hell and Paradise are the most necessary dialectical categories of this system, united by an indestructible connection. There is a dialectic of the old and new Adam, a dialectic of Hell and Heaven, but it must be touched upon in the presentation of individual mythological systems. Finally, the third idea lies at the basis of modern European mythology, where the thesis is also Chaos, but not the Greek one, but worse, so, some kind of clay, or dung, “matter”, the antithesis is “force” and “movement”, directed by who knows who and who knows where, the kingdom of absolute chance and blind self-affirmation, synthesis - the mechanics of atoms, in which there is no soul, no consciousness, no rational will, no history. The fourth idea lies at the basis of that mythology, which, having seen the truth of the second of these mythologies, begins to suffocate in the grip of the just mentioned third and, not being able to overcome it, experiences a dull and inscrutable thirst for life, a thirst for the lost blissful and peaceful, naive state of mind when everything is simple and sweet, when homeland and eternity are merged into one caress and prayer of existence. I think that the primary and main ancestral symbol of such a mythology is well outlined by Dostoevsky. “Where is this,” thought Raskolnikov, walking further, “where did I read how one sentenced to death, an hour before death, says or thinks that if he had to live somewhere at a height, on a cliff, and on such a narrow platform, so that only two legs can be placed, and all around there will be abysses, the ocean, eternal darkness, eternal solitude and an eternal storm - and stay like that, standing on a yard of space, all your life, a thousand years, eternity - then it’s better to live like that than die now! Just to live, live and live! No matter how you live, just live!.. What a truth! Lord, how true! He’s a scoundrel!.. And he’s a scoundrel who calls him a scoundrel for this,” he added a minute later.” All these mythological ideas - Indian, Egyptian, Greek, Orthodox Christian, Catholic, Protestant, atheistic, etc. - in turn form one common synthetically embodied Idea in the world-historical process, and thus a single world-wide human mythology, which underlies individual peoples and their worldviews and is gradually realized by replacing one religious-mythological and, therefore, historical system with another. However, to depict all these separate systems of mythology and show their unity in the bosom of a single and general mythology is, however, the task of our further, now special, research. Thus, our general dialectic of myth passes by itself into the dialectic of individual and special historical types of mythology.<…>
Losev A.F. Dialectics of myth. M., 1990.
- Psalm VI. Interpretation of the Psalms. Psalm VI Psalms read for different occasions
- Rene Descartes: short biography and contributions to science
- What is knowledge? Types of knowledge. Knowledge is life! Without the necessary knowledge it is impossible to survive anywhere. What is useful knowledge definition?
- Books on magic: opening the veil of secrets