8 ms·

Western culture? Last century? Really? We're story telling monkeys, and we've been obsessed with myths and stories since forever. More often than not taking it

Western culture? Last century? Really? We're story telling monkeys, and we've been obsessed with myths and stories since forever. More often than not taking it so far as it becoming a religion. It's the most distinctively human thing to do and this behaviour predates written history.

lukan 2y ago
It is, yet it is a new thing to claim rationality, yet still base most decisions on fantasy.
A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
You don't read many old books, do you? The most popular stories of the 19th century -- consider Maupassant, Victor Hugo, Dostoyevsky, Dickens, etc. -- were set in the real world of that same era. Even the pulp fiction of that era, the "penny dreadfuls," were generally gothic stories set in the real world. This is quite nice, as it allows you to learn a lot about history by reading books from that time. It almost gives you an immersive sense of history, in a way. Even the oldest legends of Europe -- Arthur, Holger Danske, Orlando Furioso, the 8th century BC Iliad, and I could go on -- ostensibly concerned themselves with the real world. (And, to strengthen Greer's point, often contained noble Saracens and other villains.) Same goes for Asia, by the way. The great legends of Asia -- from the Three Kingdoms, to the Water Margin, to the Tale of Heike -- were at least nominally "real." Not concerned with imaginary worlds. The myths we create today are qualitatively different in straightforward and obvious ways.
- lukan 2y ago
  Hm, the most popular book in the 19. century was probably still the bible. And in a list I found here, I would say the majority is still quite concerned with the real world: https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/6.Best_Books_of_the_20th_Century https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/6.Best_Books_of_the_20th... Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter just replaced the bible in my opinion, but the people in the 19.century had reasons to flee into imaginary worlds as well.
- surgical_fire 2y ago
  What about religious text? They were always very much concerned with other planes of existence. Places outside of the real world. Nonetheless, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to have stories set in their own worlds, separated from reality. Maybe it is inevitable. In previous centuries, the world itself was largely unknown. Most people never left the city they were born in until they died. Reading something set in a different real place was in many ways the only way to experience it. What is the first noteworthy piece of fiction set in a fictional land? "Alice in Wonderland", perhaps? Maybe in a world that was becoming a tad less mysterious (we already had telegraphs, trains, steam ships and so on), some started to look toward fantastical, fictional world to have the illusion of an unknown world.
  - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
    People used to take the Bible and other religious texts very seriously, and they believed in their literal truth -- far more than they believed in the truth of the Iliad or Charlemagne's Paladins. What's more, the Bible mostly presents something like a historical account with supernatural effects. So I'm not sure what we can draw from this. > What is the first noteworthy piece of fiction set in a fictional land? "Alice in Wonderland", perhaps? Maybe Edmund Spenser's The Faerie Queene? Its connection to our real world is tenuous at best, I'd say.
    - surgical_fire 2y ago
      > People used to take the Bible and other religious texts very seriously, and they believed in their literal truth I don't disagree. But in a world where even reality was very much a mystery (so you had myths of ancient lost civilizations, cities of gold, etc and so forth), maybe religion, as literal as it was taken, was enough to satisfy the common people with its otherworldly descriptions of places. My point is that I think it is natural that as the world becomes less mysterious and religion becomes increasingly seen as allegorical, the craving for fictional worlds where not all is known becomes more appealing. > Maybe Edmund Spenser's The Faerie Queene? Its connection to our real world is tenuous at best, I'd say. Maybe the oldes I can think of is the land of Avalon in Athurian legend? Still would have a tenuous connection to the real world.
- janmarsal 2y ago
  There are old books about the kingdoms far far away. Ancient Greek legends were enjoyed by renaissance era people who've never even been to Greece. And let's be real those penny dreadfuls with supernatural horror elements weren't that different from superhero comics when it comes to how detached from reality they are. And of course there's the religious texts. They often have a heavy focus on abstract things like afterlife that are very much detached from our daily life, but they're also very often foreign imports as well. Christianity is popular in Europe but its roots are in the middle east, and buddhism is very popular in east asia but its origins are in south asia. I think a certain desire for escapism is one reason why this is the case. In fact, one distinctive feature of the last century was that organized religion became less relevant to many western people. Perhaps you could argue that fiction filled the void? Kind of like how the rise of protestantism removed a lot of catholic rites and rituals from northern europe and to fill the void things like freemasonry became really popular.
  - otabdeveloper4 2y ago
    > And of course there's the religious texts. They often have a heavy focus on abstract things like afterlife that are very much detached from our daily life Really? Which ones?
- coffeebeqn 2y ago
  As a counterpoint the golden age of scifi (largely originating from the US) coincided with a golden age of the US. The largest thing in fantasy since Tolkien was probably D&D and that also coincided with a golden age for the US. The popularization of the next escapist medium (home video games) also coincided with an amazing decade for the US
  - A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
    Science fiction is something very different, and I believe you can construct an entire philosophy from the analysis of science fiction as an artform. Whereas fantasy is escapist and constructs alternative worlds, most works of science fiction -- and especially the classical "hard" science fiction of the Golden Age -- present us with a potential human future. Many of these futures, like Clarke's satellites and today's cyberpunk dystopia, quickly came to be realized. Others, like the space elevator, seem like inevitable ideas that will be realized at some point in the future. There's a lot that can be written about this, but it's definitely something different...
- dvdkon 2y ago
  Before the modern age, people were far more accepting of supernatural and/or unproven narratives about our world. Nowadays we demand evidence for anything out of the ordinary and faeries in a purportedly realistic story would feel wrong to us. It seems natural to me that the genre of "fantasy" has emerged, to let us have unrealistic elements in stories without having to admit them into our worldwiew. It sort of mirrors children's development, with them gradually considering fairy tale elements as less real and relegating them to stories specifically.
  - d0mine 2y ago
    Before the modern age, and perhaps for the vast majority even now, there is no such notion as supernatural. Magical thinking, superstition is not the exception, it is the norm. It requires conscious effort, training to diminish its effects, to introduce logic, facts into the thinking process. Propaganda would be much less effective if people were able to think rationally.
tsimionescu 2y ago
I think there is something fundamentally different between religious texts and even mostyths and fantasy/sci-fi stories. When the Mesopotamians were listening to the Epic of Gilgamesh, they were reading about the world as they thought it is. When the ancient Jews were listening to stories of Genesis or Moses, they were reading about what they believed the world to be. Even to the extent that they believed certain aspects of those stories to be parables and not an exact description of reality, the main point was to elucidate aspects of what the real world is, or how it should be. In contrast, when you read The Lord of the Rings, you're reading a pure fantasy, about a world that you're not expected to believe is real in any particular way, and where the reflections on any real world concepts are buried deep in the subtext (unlike, say, a teaching by the Buddha).
- krisoft 2y ago
  > When the Mesopotamians were listening to the Epic of Gilgamesh, they were reading about the world as they thought it is. How do we know this?
  - tsimionescu 2y ago
    We know by the number of real kings who claimed descent from Gilgamesh that there were enough people who believed this that it was worth it politically. Same as we know enough people in medieval Europe believed in the literal truth of Christianity to make it worth for kings to claim to be chosen by God for their purpose. Contrast this to the lack of modern day leaders claiming descent from Batman, or claiming the legitimacy of the Ministry of Magic. Of course, there would have certainly been people who did not believe in the literal truth of these stories - either as some form of early naturalism, or simply because they believed in other stories (like how devout Christians view the Bible as literal truth, but think the Veddas are just stories, and vice versa).
- fidotron 2y ago
  > When the Mesopotamians were listening to the Epic of Gilgamesh, they were reading about the world as they thought it is. When people tell their kids about Santa Claus is that because they believe he exists? There are always credulous people, but even in highly religious communities you will find amazingly large numbers of people only there for the community and just going along with public displays of adherence to whatever the belief system is. “True believer” is a term for a good reason.

lukan 2y ago

It is, yet it is a new thing to claim rationality, yet still base most decisions on fantasy.

A_D_E_P_T 2y ago

You don't read many old books, do you? The most popular stories of the 19th century -- consider Maupassant, Victor Hugo, Dostoyevsky, Dickens, etc. -- were set in the real world of that same era. Even the pulp fiction of that era, the "penny dreadfuls," were generally gothic stories set in the real world. This is quite nice, as it allows you to learn a lot about history by reading books from that time. It almost gives you an immersive sense of history, in a way. Even the oldest legends of Europe -- Arthur, Holger Danske, Orlando Furioso, the 8th century BC Iliad, and I could go on -- ostensibly concerned themselves with the real world. (And, to strengthen Greer's point, often contained noble Saracens and other villains.) Same goes for Asia, by the way. The great legends of Asia -- from the Three Kingdoms, to the Water Margin, to the Tale of Heike -- were at least nominally "real." Not concerned with imaginary worlds. The myths we create today are qualitatively different in straightforward and obvious ways.

lukan 2y ago
Hm, the most popular book in the 19. century was probably still the bible. And in a list I found here, I would say the majority is still quite concerned with the real world: https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/6.Best_Books_of_the_20th_Century https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/6.Best_Books_of_the_20th... Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter just replaced the bible in my opinion, but the people in the 19.century had reasons to flee into imaginary worlds as well.
surgical_fire 2y ago
What about religious text? They were always very much concerned with other planes of existence. Places outside of the real world. Nonetheless, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing to have stories set in their own worlds, separated from reality. Maybe it is inevitable. In previous centuries, the world itself was largely unknown. Most people never left the city they were born in until they died. Reading something set in a different real place was in many ways the only way to experience it. What is the first noteworthy piece of fiction set in a fictional land? "Alice in Wonderland", perhaps? Maybe in a world that was becoming a tad less mysterious (we already had telegraphs, trains, steam ships and so on), some started to look toward fantastical, fictional world to have the illusion of an unknown world.
- A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
  People used to take the Bible and other religious texts very seriously, and they believed in their literal truth -- far more than they believed in the truth of the Iliad or Charlemagne's Paladins. What's more, the Bible mostly presents something like a historical account with supernatural effects. So I'm not sure what we can draw from this. > What is the first noteworthy piece of fiction set in a fictional land? "Alice in Wonderland", perhaps? Maybe Edmund Spenser's The Faerie Queene? Its connection to our real world is tenuous at best, I'd say.
  - surgical_fire 2y ago
    > People used to take the Bible and other religious texts very seriously, and they believed in their literal truth I don't disagree. But in a world where even reality was very much a mystery (so you had myths of ancient lost civilizations, cities of gold, etc and so forth), maybe religion, as literal as it was taken, was enough to satisfy the common people with its otherworldly descriptions of places. My point is that I think it is natural that as the world becomes less mysterious and religion becomes increasingly seen as allegorical, the craving for fictional worlds where not all is known becomes more appealing. > Maybe Edmund Spenser's The Faerie Queene? Its connection to our real world is tenuous at best, I'd say. Maybe the oldes I can think of is the land of Avalon in Athurian legend? Still would have a tenuous connection to the real world.
janmarsal 2y ago
There are old books about the kingdoms far far away. Ancient Greek legends were enjoyed by renaissance era people who've never even been to Greece. And let's be real those penny dreadfuls with supernatural horror elements weren't that different from superhero comics when it comes to how detached from reality they are. And of course there's the religious texts. They often have a heavy focus on abstract things like afterlife that are very much detached from our daily life, but they're also very often foreign imports as well. Christianity is popular in Europe but its roots are in the middle east, and buddhism is very popular in east asia but its origins are in south asia. I think a certain desire for escapism is one reason why this is the case. In fact, one distinctive feature of the last century was that organized religion became less relevant to many western people. Perhaps you could argue that fiction filled the void? Kind of like how the rise of protestantism removed a lot of catholic rites and rituals from northern europe and to fill the void things like freemasonry became really popular.
- otabdeveloper4 2y ago
  > And of course there's the religious texts. They often have a heavy focus on abstract things like afterlife that are very much detached from our daily life Really? Which ones?
coffeebeqn 2y ago
As a counterpoint the golden age of scifi (largely originating from the US) coincided with a golden age of the US. The largest thing in fantasy since Tolkien was probably D&D and that also coincided with a golden age for the US. The popularization of the next escapist medium (home video games) also coincided with an amazing decade for the US
- A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
  Science fiction is something very different, and I believe you can construct an entire philosophy from the analysis of science fiction as an artform. Whereas fantasy is escapist and constructs alternative worlds, most works of science fiction -- and especially the classical "hard" science fiction of the Golden Age -- present us with a potential human future. Many of these futures, like Clarke's satellites and today's cyberpunk dystopia, quickly came to be realized. Others, like the space elevator, seem like inevitable ideas that will be realized at some point in the future. There's a lot that can be written about this, but it's definitely something different...
dvdkon 2y ago
Before the modern age, people were far more accepting of supernatural and/or unproven narratives about our world. Nowadays we demand evidence for anything out of the ordinary and faeries in a purportedly realistic story would feel wrong to us. It seems natural to me that the genre of "fantasy" has emerged, to let us have unrealistic elements in stories without having to admit them into our worldwiew. It sort of mirrors children's development, with them gradually considering fairy tale elements as less real and relegating them to stories specifically.
- d0mine 2y ago
  Before the modern age, and perhaps for the vast majority even now, there is no such notion as supernatural. Magical thinking, superstition is not the exception, it is the norm. It requires conscious effort, training to diminish its effects, to introduce logic, facts into the thinking process. Propaganda would be much less effective if people were able to think rationally.

tsimionescu 2y ago

I think there is something fundamentally different between religious texts and even mostyths and fantasy/sci-fi stories. When the Mesopotamians were listening to the Epic of Gilgamesh, they were reading about the world as they thought it is. When the ancient Jews were listening to stories of Genesis or Moses, they were reading about what they believed the world to be. Even to the extent that they believed certain aspects of those stories to be parables and not an exact description of reality, the main point was to elucidate aspects of what the real world is, or how it should be. In contrast, when you read The Lord of the Rings, you're reading a pure fantasy, about a world that you're not expected to believe is real in any particular way, and where the reflections on any real world concepts are buried deep in the subtext (unlike, say, a teaching by the Buddha).

krisoft 2y ago
> When the Mesopotamians were listening to the Epic of Gilgamesh, they were reading about the world as they thought it is. How do we know this?
- tsimionescu 2y ago
  We know by the number of real kings who claimed descent from Gilgamesh that there were enough people who believed this that it was worth it politically. Same as we know enough people in medieval Europe believed in the literal truth of Christianity to make it worth for kings to claim to be chosen by God for their purpose. Contrast this to the lack of modern day leaders claiming descent from Batman, or claiming the legitimacy of the Ministry of Magic. Of course, there would have certainly been people who did not believe in the literal truth of these stories - either as some form of early naturalism, or simply because they believed in other stories (like how devout Christians view the Bible as literal truth, but think the Veddas are just stories, and vice versa).
fidotron 2y ago
> When the Mesopotamians were listening to the Epic of Gilgamesh, they were reading about the world as they thought it is. When people tell their kids about Santa Claus is that because they believe he exists? There are always credulous people, but even in highly religious communities you will find amazingly large numbers of people only there for the community and just going along with public displays of adherence to whatever the belief system is. “True believer” is a term for a good reason.