3 ms·

The key problem with Jaynes' hypothesis is that it depends on there being a sharp distinction between the behaviour of the Bronze Age individuals described in t

The key problem with Jaynes' hypothesis is that it depends on there being a sharp distinction between the behaviour of the Bronze Age individuals described in the Iliad (for example) and modern people today. But there is no sharp distinction, and I'd argue there's no distinction at all. There's a difference in the linguistic tools used by the authors, but the characters are perfectly relatable to modern humans.

the_af 4y ago
I agree Jaynes' hypothesis is flawed, but how can you say with such confidence that: > [...] I'd argue there's no distinction at all [...] the characters are perfectly relatable to modern humans It can be that you find them relatable due to modern translations, or by projecting your own modern understanding of them. The whole of Jaynes' hypothesis is that they are quite alien and unrelatable, and that they don't function like you and me, and that our reading of them has been wrong. The probable flaw in Jaynes' thought is that I don't think there is a way to test this supposition, other than time travel.
MichaelCollins 4y ago
The biggest problem I see is with the premise of trying to investigate the nature of the human mind in antiquity by examining a few scraps of literature. Even if we accept the premise of bicameral minds existing and these pieces of literature being written by such people, I think that tells us jack shit about the nature of the average human 3000 years ago. There's no reason to think these authors were representative of the average person in their age. These writers might have been on the autism spectrum, or had schizophrenia, or any number of other unusual mental traits that could give their literature unique quirks. It's like reading a bunch of literature from the European middle ages written by monks, and then concluding that most people back then were celibate men. The social and cultural circumstances of an age leave a mark on what sort of literature is created and preserved.

the_af 4y ago

I agree Jaynes' hypothesis is flawed, but how can you say with such confidence that: > [...] I'd argue there's no distinction at all [...] the characters are perfectly relatable to modern humans It can be that you find them relatable due to modern translations, or by projecting your own modern understanding of them. The whole of Jaynes' hypothesis is that they are quite alien and unrelatable, and that they don't function like you and me, and that our reading of them has been wrong. The probable flaw in Jaynes' thought is that I don't think there is a way to test this supposition, other than time travel.

MichaelCollins 4y ago

The biggest problem I see is with the premise of trying to investigate the nature of the human mind in antiquity by examining a few scraps of literature. Even if we accept the premise of bicameral minds existing and these pieces of literature being written by such people, I think that tells us jack shit about the nature of the average human 3000 years ago. There's no reason to think these authors were representative of the average person in their age. These writers might have been on the autism spectrum, or had schizophrenia, or any number of other unusual mental traits that could give their literature unique quirks. It's like reading a bunch of literature from the European middle ages written by monks, and then concluding that most people back then were celibate men. The social and cultural circumstances of an age leave a mark on what sort of literature is created and preserved.