I Don't Like Joseph Campbell

[Ouroboros]

LR, beautiful.

[sojourner]

Thanks for posting that link Grandpa Harley

 

I love the book Im currently reading of his called The Hero with a Thousand Faces, I believe it is and bought some others to read when I finish this one. Personally I love his books. He really stretches me.

 

sojourner

[Sophronia]

Soph just curious, but is the bout of enthusiasm for the sacrifice motif your main (only?) reason for disliking Campbell so?

 

No. I also think he is generally overrated. I dislike the unquestioning acceptance of his work. Everyone's theories should be questioned including his. And his are no longer questioned by most people I know.

 

I also think his popular saying "Follow your bliss" is an oversimplified, vapid, feel-good platitude that has probably caused more harm than good.

[Sophronia]

The level of dislike seems to be emotionaly based, and that usually means something personal has been touched. I can see why Campell would be disliked, but only from an emotional level. He threatens cherished beliefs as nothing special or unique, but universal.

 

But as far as calling him a poser? That's a personal attack that can not be supported in reality. It's a defense tactic.

 

I'm trying to see your point, Soph, but I just can't. Sorry.

 

Well, none of the stuff we're talking about in this thread can be proved scientifically, including his theories on myths.

 

Ergo my "emotional" reaction to his theories is no more unsupportable than his theories themselves. We're dealing with stuff that is all relative anyway. I know of no way that "the power of myth" can be proved outside of human psychology, which is a pretty touchy-feely field.

 

So, I guess I don't see your point either.

[Sophronia]

Btw, Soph, you say "Thor" under "any gods", what's your stand on human sacrifice in the old Asatru?

 

I would not glorify it.

 

Though actually, I don't think we can prove that there were any "old Asatru". As far as I know, the idea of an "Asatru religion" is pretty much a modern creation, or re-creation if you want to stretch it.

 

I'm not saying Asatru is not a valid path, just that I very much doubt the old Norse & Teutonic peoples conceived of it in the same way.

 

If you want to talk about that kind of thing in detail it should probably go into another thread. But I have very little comment as I do not consider myself a reconstructionist. I am about as far from a reconstructionist as one can be. Nor am I Asatru.

 

Regardless of what they called themselves, Asatru, Heathen, or whatever, I don't think any form of human sacrifice should be glorified. Does that answer your question?

[trashy]

I notice that the OP has a link in her sig to a site about Runes and getting a reading done. A quick Google search reveals that most discussion about Campbell takes place on pagan/wiccan sites. Perhaps this thread should be in the "Theism and Spirituality" section?

[Sophronia]

"Power Of Myth 4 - Sacrifice and Bliss"

 

Would this be the offending article?

 

It was a video, not an article, so I don't know and don't have time to read it this morning as I have no desire to vomit my breakfast all over the place.

[Ouroboros]

Soph just curious, but is the bout of enthusiasm for the sacrifice motif your main (only?) reason for disliking Campbell so?

 

No. I also think he is generally overrated. I dislike the unquestioning acceptance of his work. Everyone's theories should be questioned including his. And his are no longer questioned by most people I know.

Of course. But I get the feeling you're putting more importance to this guy than necessary. Campbell isn't that big or famous. Some people know his works, and are impressed by it, but they read other material as well, and he's no saint and no savior for anyone that I talked to. I've met people that like him, but also like poetry, like Rumi, or Thoreau... So far I haven't met anyone that puts him on any higher pedestal than any other interesting writer or scholar. Myself are very impressed by Doc Price, but does that mean I adore and praise him as some above-mere-men standards? Hardly. You take what is good and keep that, and then just let go of the things you don't like as much.

 

I also think his popular saying "Follow your bliss" is an oversimplified, vapid, feel-good platitude that has probably caused more harm than good.

Interesting. Do you have any examples of how that has caused harm?

 

Maybe you're right, maybe it's an oversimplification, but of what? What does it simplify? It simplifies recurring concepts in many religions he did study. He did travel, did study, did learn, even participated in some. But since you obviously think he's completely wrong with everything he says about religion, then that phrase isn't any simplification of anything that is remotely important or believable to you, so how can it be an over-simplification then? You don't believe what he said. So the phrase could be "simplification" of what he said. But how can you think it's oversimplifying his theory, if you don't believe his theory? I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning...

 

(Btw, I'm glad you came back to respond. I just never met anyone before that hated Campbell this much.)

[Ouroboros]

Btw, Soph, you say "Thor" under "any gods", what's your stand on human sacrifice in the old Asatru?

 

I would not glorify it.

But you don't reject it publicly. Just like Campbell. You didn't say you are against it, until I asked, so it means that it would be the same thing with Campbell. If he was still alive, and we asked him, he possibly would say "I don't support it and I don't glorify the real acts of sacrifice, but the myths are more real than reality itself. So when the fictional Hero is sacrificed and then transformed and resurrected, a change has happened, not only in the Hero in the story, but also in the reader."

 

Though actually, I don't think we can prove that there were any "old Asatru". As far as I know, the idea of an "Asatru religion" is pretty much a modern creation, or re-creation if you want to stretch it.

What do you mean? I grew up in Sweden, in an area with runstenar, domarringar, and even hatches... and much more. We have artifacts from the Viking time, and their beliefs. I have walked the burial mounds of Ulva kvarn, where Beowulf is believed to be buried. I've read the runes on real stones. My last time I saw my father, we took a trip around the woods and photographed some of them. I've met shamans too.

 

If you say it's modern, I'm not sure in what sense you mean that. I read about the Asa gods 35 years ago, in elementary school, so do you mean "modern" as in the last 100 years or something? I have on my shelf a book collection of Swedish history books. Some of them are more than 100 years old. Maybe I should take a look and see what they say about it?

 

 

I'm not saying Asatru is not a valid path, just that I very much doubt the old Norse & Teutonic peoples conceived of it in the same way.

Very true. But the sacrifices was something I'm quite certain they did. But the Asatruer today, do not.

 

If you want to talk about that kind of thing in detail it should probably go into another thread. But I have very little comment as I do not consider myself a reconstructionist. I am about as far from a reconstructionist as one can be. Nor am I Asatru.

 

Regardless of what they called themselves, Asatru, Heathen, or whatever, I don't think any form of human sacrifice should be glorified. Does that answer your question?

Yes it does make sense. And it proves my point. You make a reference to a god that is associated with an old faith where human sacrifice was common, and yet you didn't actively or explicitly denounce the practice until you were asked. What are the chances that this would be the same reaction if we could ask Campbell today?

[Deva]

"Power Of Myth 4 - Sacrifice and Bliss"

 

Would this be the offending article?

 

It was a video, not an article, so I don't know and don't have time to read it this morning as I have no desire to vomit my breakfast all over the place.

 

This is a link to a video, actually. Earlier in this thread Barnacle Bill (post #32) provided links to the entire series of videos of The Power of Myth. No one here says you have to like Campbell, but we are just trying to understand why you dislike him. If you could narrow down the spot where Campbell applaudes sacrifices and seems to take an inordinate pleasure in them, we can view it again and it might help us understand where you are coming from. As it is, there have been so many interviews with Campbell (and not just this series) that we don't know which one you are referring to.

[Deva]

I notice that the OP has a link in her sig to a site about Runes and getting a reading done. A quick Google search reveals that most discussion about Campbell takes place on pagan/wiccan sites. Perhaps this thread should be in the "Theism and Spirituality" section?

 

I agree that Theism and Sprituality would be a more appropriate forum for this discussion.

[Ouroboros]

Moved to T&S.

 

Soph, my understanding is that you both dislike the message and the messenger at once, or is it that you hate the messenger (Campbell) and only because of that reason you dislike his message too?

[Legion]

No. I also think he is generally overrated. I dislike the unquestioning acceptance of his work. Everyone's theories should be questioned including his. And his are no longer questioned by most people I know.

I think that’s fair enough Sophronia. And I agree that theories should be questioned and put to the test.

 

I also think his popular saying "Follow your bliss" is an oversimplified, vapid, feel-good platitude that has probably caused more harm than good.

I find that the moment of discovery is blissful. That moment when things click, and understanding comes rushing in. I love it. Yet the pursuit of this experience entails many things, and not all of them are pleasant. Confusion, drudgery, error, pain, and frustration, among others, must often be endured in my experience.

[Grandpa Harley]

"Power Of Myth 4 - Sacrifice and Bliss"

 

Would this be the offending article?

 

It was a video, not an article, so I don't know and don't have time to read it this morning as I have no desire to vomit my breakfast all over the place.

 

I was using article in the sense of an artefact, not specifically a short piece of text... it's common usage of English in English English... not that ghastly patois that the colonials speak, so it would seem...

 

So, is that the thing you're complaining about? You opened the bloody box, so you can at least check to see if it IS the thing you have the problem with rather mincing around like a spoiled brat bitching...

[godlessgrrl]

He presented his own theories on how he felt that myth reflects human qualities.

 

Yes, scholars in any given field do tend to do that.

 

He was by no means a scientist, nor do his theories qualify as facts.

 

True. The liberal arts are not sciences. They aren't meant to be. I don't see that anyone here is mistaking them for such, or thinking that Campbell did anything other than what a good liberal arts scholar should do: formulate ideas about a given topic, and share them.

 

The unquestioning reverence he receives from so many is reason enough to dislike him.

 

I disagree. It might be reason to envy him for the attention he gets, or to regard those who revere him without question with some contempt. But adulation of anyone has nothing to do with whether or not the ideas they present have any merit or truth (or, by contrast, are utter crap). The value of Campbell's ideas is separate from how his ideas have been received.

 

I do agree that his ideas should be questioned, though. As should anyone's. That's sort of the way the liberal arts work anyway - people build on previous ideas, recycle them, examine them, put them together, take them apart. It's a softer process than hard sciences, but that's the nature of the beast.

 

Is it Campbell himself to whom you object, or his ideas? Or both?