> One might ask why we would want to fight against them. I mean, not, "we
> shouldn't fight against them," but "what is our purpose in fighting against
> them?" If, for example, we're going to chuck mythos as a method for
> determining the meaning of life, and instead rely on logos, why are we
> doing this? What does it offer us that mythos does not?
Logos allows us to build "ever better" models of the world. That is
it's advantage over the simple, pleasing mythos. Of course, if you only
want to /enjoy/ the world and not /use/ or /understand/ it, I'd say
you'd be better of with the mythos.
> I contend that neither gets anyone much of anywhere, because they deal with
> different realms of experience. I also contend that most people mix logical
On the contrary, logos gets you places. In planes. Cars. Or through
the little copper wires and unto the 'net.
> thinking and mythical thinking quite successfully, and that it's been done
> for a much longer time than, say, Post-Structuralism or Post-Modernism.
Yes, certainly. Isn't that the very steriotype of a Christian
_scientist_? (not those misguided Creation dudes but rather the average
weekday scientist who attends Church on Sunday)
> [ btw: thanks for the "mythos" phrase. ]
I like it myself.
ERiC