I've been going through Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari lately, and one of the common themes in the early chapters of his book is the role shared myths play in human cooperation. His argument essentially is it's these shared myths (whether they be religious myths, the myth of romanticism, the myth of the dollar, the myth of countries or corporations, or anything really which is primarily a creation of the human mind) which allow for large scale human cooperation, and that for these myths to be effective they must have some degree of true believers. I understand that our cultural norms and mores are rooted in religious tradition, but my belief has always been that if we disposed of the mythological portion of religious beliefs we wouldn't need to dispose of everything else. However, if Harari's argument is accepted as true, then it seems that either the religious myths would need to be replaced with some other myth that we could rally around, or that those religious myths are necessary for the continued flourishing of society. I have not been able to think through this completely yet, and I was wondering what others' reaction to this argument is.

dargscisyhp said:

---

I've been going through Sapiens by Yuval Noah Harari lately, and one of the common themes in the early chapters of his book is the role shared myths play in human cooperation. His argument essentially is it's these shared myths (whether they be religious myths, the myth of romanticism, the myth of the dollar, the myth of countries or corporations, or anything really which is primarily a creation of the human mind) which allow for large scale human cooperation, and that for these myths to be effective they must have some degree of true believers. I understand that our cultural norms and mores are rooted in religious tradition, but my belief has always been that if we disposed of the mythological portion of religious beliefs we wouldn't need to dispose of everything else. However, if Harari's argument is accepted as true, then it seems that either the religious myths would need to be replaced with some other myth that we could rally around, or that those religious myths are necessary for the continued flourishing of society. I have not been able to think through this completely yet, and I was wondering what others' reaction to this argument is.

---

What does he mean by "myth"? It has different meanings and usages.

But I tend to agree that cultures need to share certain values and precepts to be workable and not become Balkanized.

Finally, was Tolkien thinking along the same lines when he attempted to duplicate the Nordic myths for the Anglo-Saxons?

I think much of the history of the 20th century could feasibly be explained that the popular myth of nationalism become the prominent one in the world.

Sounds right to me, give or take. Check out Clifford Geertz for a complementary perspective. Story and narrative identity play a large role in orienting us as individuals in the world and in relation to others.

Jabin said:

---

What does he mean by "myth"? It has different meanings and usages.

---

I'm not sure how to best define it, other than as a collective fiction, something that in principle exists because of the human imagination. Perhaps the following excerpt from Harari himself can help elucidate some?

Quote:

---

Any large-scale human cooperation whether a modern state, a medieval church, an ancient city, or an archaic tribe is rooted in common myths that exist only in people's collective imagination. Churches are rooted in common religious myths. Two Catholics who have never met can nevertheless go together on crusade or pool funds to build a hospital because they both believe God was incarnated in human flesh and allowed Himself to be crucified to redeem our sins. States are rooted in common national myths. Two Serbs who have never met might risk their lives to save one another because both believe in the existence of the Serbian nation, the Serbian homeland and the Serbian flag. Judicial systems are rooted in common legal myths. Two lawyers who have never met can nevertheless combine efforts to defend a complete stranger because they both believe in the existence of laws, justice, human rights, and money paid out in fees.

---

americathegreat1492 said:

---

Sounds right to me, give or take. Check out Clifford Geertz for a complementary perspective. Story and narrative identity play a large role in orienting us as individuals in the world and in relation to others.

---

Thanks for the recommendation.

I think that he has a point, but I bridle a bit at the word "myth" because of its implication that it is a false or fictional set of beliefs and values.

Our belief in the rule of law, although never 100% true, is not false or fictional.

A Serbian's belief in her nation's history and nationalism is not necessarily false or fictional.

And, as a Christian, I obviously don't agree that a belief in the resurrected Christ is a myth or false or fictional.

In fact, although people do need to share a common narrative, it is difficult for them to continue holding on to it in the face of countervailing reality if it is largely and clearly false or fictional.

Having said all of that, a "people" do need shared values, shared morality, and most likely a shared narrative that gives them identity as a people. Without a true narrative, most groups will create their own, it seems.

dargscisyhp said:

---

Jabin said:

---

What does he mean by "myth"? It has different meanings and usages.

---

I'm not sure how to best define it, other than as a collective fiction, something that in principle exists because of the human imagination. Perhaps the following excerpt from Harari himself can help elucidate some?

Quote:

---

Any large-scale human cooperation whether a modern state, a medieval church, an ancient city, or an archaic tribe is rooted in common myths that exist only in people's collective imagination. Churches are rooted in common religious myths. Two Catholics who have never met can nevertheless go together on crusade or pool funds to build a hospital because they both believe God was incarnated in human flesh and allowed Himself to be crucified to redeem our sins. States are rooted in common national myths. Two Serbs who have never met might risk their lives to save one another because both believe in the existence of the Serbian nation, the Serbian homeland and the Serbian flag. Judicial systems are rooted in common legal myths. Two lawyers who have never met can nevertheless combine efforts to defend a complete stranger because they both believe in the existence of laws, justice, human rights, and money paid out in fees.

---

---

By that broad of a definition, can you name something that humans believe that isn't a myth?

Jabin said:

---

I think that he has a point, but I bridle a bit at the word "myth" because of its implication that it is a false or fictional set of beliefs and values.

Our belief in the rule of law, although never 100% true, is not false or fictional.

A Serbian's belief in her nation's history and nationalism is not necessarily false or fictional.

And, as a Christian, I obviously don't agree that a belief in the resurrected Christ is a myth or false or fictional.

In fact, although people do need to share a common narrative, it is difficult for them to continue holding on to it in the face of countervailing reality if it is largely and clearly false or fictional.

Having said all of that, a "people" do need shared values, shared morality, and most likely a shared narrative that gives them identity as a people. Without a true narrative, most groups will create their own, it seems.

---

I think Harari would agree with this:

Quote:

---

The inter-subjective is something that exists within the communication network linking the subjective consciousness of many individuals. If a single individual changes his or her beliefs, or even dies, it is of little importance. However, if most individuals in the network die or change their beliefs, the inter-subjective phenomenon will mutate or disappear. Inter-subjective phenomena are neither malevolent frauds nor insignificant charades. They exist in a different way from physical phenomena such as radioactivity, but their impact on the world may still be enormous. Many of history's most important drivers are inter-subjective: law, money, gods, nations.

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Jabin said:

---

What does he mean by "myth"? It has different meanings and usages.

---

I'm not sure how to best define it, other than as a collective fiction, something that in principle exists because of the human imagination. Perhaps the following excerpt from Harari himself can help elucidate some?

Quote:

---

Any large-scale human cooperation whether a modern state, a medieval church, an ancient city, or an archaic tribe is rooted in common myths that exist only in people's collective imagination. Churches are rooted in common religious myths. Two Catholics who have never met can nevertheless go together on crusade or pool funds to build a hospital because they both believe God was incarnated in human flesh and allowed Himself to be crucified to redeem our sins. States are rooted in common national myths. Two Serbs who have never met might risk their lives to save one another because both believe in the existence of the Serbian nation, the Serbian homeland and the Serbian flag. Judicial systems are rooted in common legal myths. Two lawyers who have never met can nevertheless combine efforts to defend a complete stranger because they both believe in the existence of laws, justice, human rights, and money paid out in fees.

---

---

By that broad of a definition, can you name something that humans believe that isn't a myth?

---

One of the example Harari gives is radioactivity.

When someone says Christianity is a myth, I stop reading. Sorry.

I enjoyed his books. I don't think Harari is particularly interested in whether or not the myth is true or false, but rather how Sapiens, unlike other animals, including perhaps other human species, can coordinate with Sapiens we have never met based on shared ideas and stories that exist in our minds rather than as obvious physical realties. For example, you can convince a person to give someone a banana because it's "fair" or "right" or by exchanging it with green pieces of paper, but a monkey, who is very intelligent, is just going to eat the banana.

dermdoc said:

---

When someone says Christianity is a myth, I stop reading. Sorry.

---

Your apology is accepted, I forgive you for denying me your analysis of this, you might have offered me a unique and thought-provoking perspective, but it's your prerogative of course.

By definition, the stories within the Bible are myths. That, however, doesn't in of itself mean that they are fictional. A story can be both true and mythical, despite how the word myth is often used.

dargscisyhp said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Jabin said:

---

What does he mean by "myth"? It has different meanings and usages.

---

I'm not sure how to best define it, other than as a collective fiction, something that in principle exists because of the human imagination. Perhaps the following excerpt from Harari himself can help elucidate some?

Quote:

---

Any large-scale human cooperation whether a modern state, a medieval church, an ancient city, or an archaic tribe is rooted in common myths that exist only in people's collective imagination. Churches are rooted in common religious myths. Two Catholics who have never met can nevertheless go together on crusade or pool funds to build a hospital because they both believe God was incarnated in human flesh and allowed Himself to be crucified to redeem our sins. States are rooted in common national myths. Two Serbs who have never met might risk their lives to save one another because both believe in the existence of the Serbian nation, the Serbian homeland and the Serbian flag. Judicial systems are rooted in common legal myths. Two lawyers who have never met can nevertheless combine efforts to defend a complete stranger because they both believe in the existence of laws, justice, human rights, and money paid out in fees.

---

---

By that broad of a definition, can you name something that humans believe that isn't a myth?

---

One of the example Harari gives is radioactivity.

---

Well I guess our collective usage of the word "myth" is a myth.

"Myth", in academics, doesn't imply true or false. It's a collection of shared beliefs, often organized around a cultural narrative or set of narratives. The most professional ones go out of their way to treat these narratives dispassionately without placing a true or false label on any of them.

Their interest isn't in evaluating them as true or false, but understanding what people get out of having these stories, comparing stories from different cultures, or learning and analyzing the stories for their own sake.

As someone noted, Tolkien was a great expert and lover of myth across many cultures, and he was also a devout Roman Catholic. Trying to remember a quote exactly, but I think he or CS Lewis said something to the effect of all myths contain truth even if they aren't "true".

Trying to respond a little bit more to the original thread, some of the ancient Romans identified something like this. Some of the writers who weren't believers in the gods themselves nevertheless blamed degeneracy and strife on the fact that not enough people were devout. I'm trying to remember where I read that exactly, hopefully it will come to me.

I don't really like Sapiens itself, but it can be a very brief introduction to some interesting subjects.

Ulrich said:

---

I don't really like Sapiens itself

---

What do you dislike about it?

Jabin said:

---

I think that he has a point, but I bridle a bit at the word "myth" because of its implication that it is a false or fictional set of beliefs and values.

Our belief in the rule of law, although never 100% true, is not false or fictional.

A Serbian's belief in her nation's history and nationalism is not necessarily false or fictional.

And, as a Christian, I obviously don't agree that a belief in the resurrected Christ is a myth or false or fictional.

In fact, although people do need to share a common narrative, it is difficult for them to continue holding on to it in the face of countervailing reality if it is largely and clearly false or fictional.

Having said all of that, a "people" do need shared values, shared morality, and most likely a shared narrative that gives them identity as a people. Without a true narrative, most groups will create their own, it seems.

---

In an academic sense, "myth" has nothing to do with the truth or fiction of a narrative. It has only to do with the idea of a shared narrative that provides context and meaning for people. We have national myths about, say, the Declaration of Independence. These myths may be completely grounded in fact, but they are considered myths because of the value the narrative itself has to the target community.