Abstract
Tofighian draws connections between Plato studies and the history of myth studies. He analyzes the history and impact of religious studies and mythography and identifies overlaps and influences in modern perspectives on Plato’s myths. Tofighian accounts for recent intellectual developments in myth studies and questions why they have been marginalized or ignored in studies of Plato’s myths. He also resists defining myth by using one definition or reducing myth to one or a limited number of functions. Tofighian argues that each myth needs to be examined individually (i.e., in its own philosophical, literary, and thematic context). He prepares readers for an interpretation of Plato’s dialogues that appreciates the interdependent nature of myth and philosophy, showing how the two modes of explanation operate in an interdependent unity to produce meaning.
An earlier and shorter version of this chapter is published in Tofighian (2010).
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
In the introduction to the second edition of Vladimir Propp’s Morphology of the Folktale, Alan Dundes explains that the affinities between these different forms of narrative have been based primarily on content rather than structure. He indicates that one of the virtues of Propp’s study is that it illustrates how important cultural patterns are manifested in cultural production, including novels, plays, comic strips, and motion picture and television plots (Propp [1968] pp. xiv–xv). Appreciation of similar factors can be traced back to Fontenelle’s ground-breaking essay ‘On the Origin of Fables’ (1724); see Feldman and Richardson (1972) pp. 7–18. For an explanation of Heyne’s (1729–1812) contribution to the emergence of modern myth studies and the modern use of the term myth, see Bremmer (2011) pp. 532–533; Feldman and Richardson (1972) pp. 215–223.
- 2.
Doty collected fifty individual definitions of myth. He groups them into eight types: myth as aesthetic device, narrative, or literary form; subject matter pertaining to gods or a realm beyond ours; etiology; early, weak, or inaccurate science; myth as the literal or verbal concomitant to ritual; an accessible account of universals; explicating beliefs, collective experiences, or values; and the expression of ‘spiritual’ or ‘psychic’ states (Doty [1986] p. 9).
- 3.
- 4.
Consider Coupe’s various references to the theme of deliverance in his book Myth (2006).
- 5.
For an example of the significance of recurrence in myth, see Hatab (2005).
- 6.
For a study of the notion of progress, see Mehta (1985) pp. 69–82.
- 7.
See Frye (1957). Of course, Frye’s classification is not the only series of plot structures offering general categories for genres, but it is a helpful tool to begin analysis. To identify the kinds of plot structures manifest in Plato’s dialogues, I fuse Frye’s four ‘master types’ with more specific types of mythic plots. For an example of the influence of Frye’s theory, see White (1973). In his introduction, White explains briefly the features of each mode and gives some examples of their application (pp. 8–11). For philosophical critique and development of Frye’s mythographic work, see Lentricchia (1980).
- 8.
Propp draws attention to the problems associated with classifying and defining ‘themes’ or ‘motifs’. He is correct in highlighting problems with dividing selected sections, ideas, or events from a narrative into strict classes. This approach, he argues, neglects inherent idiosyncratic qualities within those units and ignores the overlapping nature of different themes (Propp [1968] pp. 7–12). See Gerhart and Russell (2002) pp. 194–196, for examples of how themes influence political and scientific allegiances and how these allegiances characterize the way observation and research are narrated. The authors also explain how Gerald Holton incorporates methodological techniques from anthropology, art criticism and similar fields, and methods associated with thematic analysis and applies them to scientific writing with great success.
- 9.
Doty (1986) p. 6.
- 10.
- 11.
Doty (1986) pp. 56–60.
- 12.
Eliade’s forward to Feldman and Richardson (1972) pp. xx–xxi.
- 13.
One example of scholarship that indicates this partiality is Chance (1994).
- 14.
Louis (2005).
- 15.
Eliade’s forward to Feldman and Richardson (1972) p. xxi.
- 16.
Eliade’s forward to Feldman and Richardson (1972) p. xix. Reduction should not always be interpreted as negative. Theories are reductive in that they discover similarities in a wide range of myths and present generalizations for analytic purposes. The type of reduction I criticize is one that enforces and perpetuates a simple dichotomy and limits or eliminates interpretative possibilities.
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.
Segal (2004) p. 120.
- 20.
Schmitz (2007) p. 50.
- 21.
I interpret the place and significance of literary plot structures in different Platonic dialogues and explain how they integrate other important literary and philosophical components.
- 22.
White (1973) pp. 5–7. Also, Holton points out that in scientific writing, what he terms public science, the writer applies a similar kind of selectivity. He or she reports methods, data, and conclusions only after specific laboratory notes are taken and ‘disembodied’ from the historical context in which they are compiled. Public science supports a particular position or theory and guarantees further publication and reference (Gerhart and Russell [2002] pp. 194 and 204).
- 23.
White (1973) pp. 31–38.
- 24.
Carroll (2001).
- 25.
Consider White’s interpretation of the way characters and events are represented in film and literature in White (2000) pp. 66–86.
- 26.
Lincoln (1999) Chap. 4.
- 27.
Lincoln (1999) p. 95.
- 28.
Doty (2003).
- 29.
Influenced by Croce, Anglo-American New Criticism and Russian Formalism hold that artistic expressions are unique and incommensurable constructions and cannot be translated or explained according to another discourse without losing their original character. They do not deny the possibility of good translations or interpretations, only that they must insist on the value of the original. Theorists argue that generic theories destroy the idiosyncratic nature and quality of each text; the idea of genre must be replaced by close readings. Literary texts must be appreciated and understood according to their internal structure and the dynamic interrelation between their constituent units, not limited by overarching definitions reducing texts to vague categories or misrepresentations (Zima [1999] pp. 18–19).
- 30.
Kirk (1984) pp. 54–55. The notion of a universal theory that proposes a social or psychological origin and a basic function for myth is the product of the early period in the tradition of modern mythography. These earlier theories have continued to characterize theorizing and, indeed, Kirk was influenced by the prevailing structuralism of his time. Some of the most influential and prominent pioneers, particularly with respect to their impact on later philosophical perspectives, include Fontenelle, Bayle, and Vico. See Feldman and Richardson (1972) Part One.
- 31.
The views of eighteenth-century myth scholar Nicolas Fréret deserve particular mention in this regard. His complex and contextual approach to mythology opposes the common reductionist tendency of the time (Feldman and Richardson [1972] pp. 93–98).
- 32.
For a historical approach sensitive to the layers of influence in the construction of a myth, see Witzel (2012).
- 33.
Lévi-Strauss (1973) pp. 1–3. Lévi-Strauss’s structuralist approach to the study of myth is significant for the way it influenced ‘second-generation structuralists’ (Doty [1986]) such as Detienne, Vernant, and Vidal-Naquet, who are critical of Lévi-Strauss and represent a poststructuralist and post-Freudian trajectory. For analysis of Vernant’s contribution to structuralism and examples of his approach, see Csapo (2005) pp. 247–261.
- 34.
- 35.
Lévi-Strauss (1955) pp. 428–444, p. 428.
- 36.
Doty (1986) p. 10.
- 37.
See Colloud-Streit (2005) p. 15 regarding the problems associated with definitions of myth.
- 38.
Doty (1986) p. xiii.
- 39.
Consider Detienne’s L’Invention de la mythologie (1981).
- 40.
Araújo and Maeso (2015); Maaka and Andersen (2006); Smith (1999); Weinbaum (2004); Buck-Morrs (Summer 2000); Jean-Marie (2013). See Bernal (1987, 2006, 2001) for analysis of these issues in the context of classical scholarship. For criticism of Bernal’s work, see Lefkowitz and Rogers (1996); Marchand and Grafton (1997).
- 41.
For an example of scholarship that begins to address the extent to which colonialism and the politics of race characterize myth studies, see Csapo (2005) pp. 10–14, 19–22 and 45.
- 42.
Many of the authors who thrived during the Max Müller-inspired era of myth studies (nineteenth and early twentieth century) were prominent beneficiaries of the colonial period and driven by Müller’s ‘scientific’ approach to the study of mythology (Eliade’s introduction to Feldman and Richardson [1972] p. xiii; also, see Blok (1994) for analysis of Creuzer and K.O. Müller and scientific approach to mythology). One example of the pseudoscientific scholarship committed to studies of myth and advanced during this period is Müller’s promotion and elaboration of the Turanism movement; see Lincoln (1999) p. 68. For the dynamic interrelation between colonialism, racism, and modernity, see Gilroy (1993); Wynter (2003); Weinbaum (2004); Mills (1997); Alcoff and Caputo (2011).
- 43.
- 44.
Kirk (1984) p. 54.
- 45.
Park (2013) indicates that critical awareness of coloniality and racism is also lacking in research into the history of philosophy and investigates the exclusion of non-European philosophy since the eighteenth century. He draws attention to important work in this area by Moellendorf (Summer 1992); Halbfass (1998); King (1999); Bernasconi (1997, Spring 1995, October 1995, 2000, 2002, 2003). Also, see Brennan (2014); Alcoff and Mendieta (2000).
- 46.
- 47.
- 48.
- 49.
- 50.
- 51.
Hayden White’s criticism of historicism is relevant in terms of illuminating the limits of evaluations of myth on the basis of particular views of history (such as positivist or Romantic). White contributes to the philosophy of history by blurring the boundaries between historiography and literary criticism highlighting the relevance and implications of the narrative structure in historical accounts and introducing the use of tropes. For White, historical writing and studies of history are subject to linguistic and cultural constraints. In addition, the moral and aesthetic preferences associated with historians’ accounts influence the form of narrative selected to represent a series of events (Paul [2009] p. 56). These preferences determine particular forms of historical representation and influence content. The status and function of myth also need to be understood in terms of the interpreter’s historical presuppositions and conditions. For a historical approach to modern theories of religion criticizing the different forms of historicism involved in understanding religion, see Capps (1995) Chap. 2.
- 52.
- 53.
Gantz (1993) is an important resource for identifying themes, motifs, and characters from classical folklore and myths.
- 54.
Doty (1986) pp. 15, 17–18 and pp. 20–21.
- 55.
Gould (1990) pp. 3–12 refers particularly to Socrates and Plato; also, see Rosen (1988) and Levin (2001). See Doty (1986) pp. 3–4 for a brief description of the origins of the separation that pays special attention to semantic shifts. The ancient quarrel between poets and philosophers is significant for analysis of modern myth theories and their relationship to philosophy. Most modern theories emerge from the social sciences, but some come from philosophy. The traditional poetry/philosophy distinction influenced modern philosophy in terms of its reading of the dichotomy paradigm promoted by modern myth theorists. Therefore, a common language and framework exist between philosophers and modern mythographers. Also, philosophy occupies an influential role in the emergence and development of social science disciplines, and there is a general agreement that poetry/narrative and philosophy/argument are in conflict, or at least divergent.
- 56.
Early Greek philosophers, particularly Plato, reject mytho-poetic truth claims, and many fundamental features of their arguments are valid. But outright rejection of all myths, including those presented in a philosophical context (such as Plato’s myths), are based on or influenced by the general attack on myth and poetry prevalent among some early philosophers. I distinguish between different kinds of myth and argue that ultimately Plato, in his role as creator of myths, is distinct from Homer (Morgan [2000] 15–16).
- 57.
Brisson (1998) pp. 9–10. In the introduction, under the heading ‘Plato’s Critique of Muthos’, Brisson lists these five defects inherent in the nature of myth.
- 58.
For the influence of Hegel on literary theory and the history of visual art, which played a significant role in this form of modern interpretation of classical poetry and literature, see Zima (1999) pp. 6–8.
- 59.
Lévi-Strauss presents a model for structuralist approaches to narrative called the paradigmatic model. This theory involves establishing polar oppositions between phenomena in order to understand the deeper structure of a text. The model and associated methods are influential in many contemporary studies of myth that take dichotomy or independence of genres as a starting point. Lévi-Strauss relates the paradigms to other aspects of culture which influence the updated view of myth as model (Propp [1968] pp. xii–xiii; Lévi-Strauss [1955, 1963]). Also, see Csapo (2005) pp. 212–245.
- 60.
Schilbrack (2002b) p. 2. Schilbrack criticizes the overbearing influence of Christian theism on the philosophy of religion and argues that until philosophers from within that tradition—particularly philosophers in the English-speaking tradition—broaden the objects of their study, the questions that inspire and enhance the scope of inquiry will remain limited. For a comprehensive account of the history of religious studies that pays close attention to the significant influence of Christianity and Christian thought, see Sharpe (1975). For recent philosophical studies of political myth, see Bottici (2007); Bottici and Challand (2010).
Scanning through the enormous amount of scholarly literature written on religion and myth over the last couple of centuries, one notices an unequalled commitment to the use of continental philosophy or philosophers heavily influenced by continental schools of thought. The lineage is a long one and includes figures such as Friese, Hegel, Schleiermacher, Ritschel, Otto, and Nygren. More recent scholars in this field also express a debt to the tradition: notable figures include Müller, Eliade, Jung, Goodenough, Feurbach, Marx, Barth, Tillich, and Ricoeur. Among recent essays and books written on philosophical interpretations of myth and religion, the presence of continental philosophy is pervasive. (Consider many of the essays in Schilbrack (2002b), Hatab’s use of Heidegger and Nietzsche [1990], and Capps’s approach based on influence from Capps 1995).
- 61.
- 62.
For classical theorists of religion and myth, such as Tylor, myth is explained in relation to cognition. Mythical explanations ascribe physical events to the personal will of a god or spirit, and scientific explanations involve postulating impersonal forces behind physical occurrences. The two are incompatible since there cannot be two different efficient causes for one event, but are methodologically connected in that they try to offer reasons for physical occurrences. For a concise account of Tylor’s interpretation of myth, see Segal (2004) pp. 14–23.
- 63.
For a summary of Tylor’s theory of religion, including background information, see Sharpe (1975) pp. 53–58.
- 64.
Feminist philosopher Michele Le Doeuff identifies myth as a narrative that has always provided philosophy with imagery and a way to accommodate passion into rational deliberation (1989). She believes the two are inseparable and identifies the presence of myth in philosophical texts, thus rejecting the dichotomy paradigm. For Le Doeuff, myth and philosophy as combined renders a complete account of lived experience that must necessarily incorporate aspects of an embodied being such as sexual orientation, ethnicity, class, and political affiliation. Another feminist philosopher, Pamela Sue Anderson, argues that Le Doeuff’s theory offers many important insights into the place of myth in philosophy that have remained unacknowledged by philosophers but have provided feminist theory with form and content (Anderson [2002]).
- 65.
However, the exceptions are significant; Barash (2011) reveals important insights in his contrast of Cassirer and Blumenberg.
- 66.
One example of explicit connection and reference to one myth studies theory is the ‘Cambridge School’ or ‘Cambridge Ritualists’. The work of Jane Ellen Harrison, Gilbert Murray, and F.M. Cornford is heavily influenced, and acknowledges their debt to, the myth-ritual school of William Robertson Smith and James Frazer (and to some extent K.O. Müller). See Louis (2005) pp. 351–354. Bremmer comments on the significance of Harrison in contrast to other prominent movements: ‘... Harrison’s highly fertile idea had little effect on the wider classical world... moreover this period saw the rise of functionalism in anthropology, as personified by Bronislaw Malinowski, and functionalism had little interest in mythology. Meanwhile, in Germany, interest in mythology died with Usener and Robert, and the scholar who came to dominate the classical world was Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Mollendorff (1848–1931), who loathed the idea of “savages” in Greece, rejected the comparative approach, which indeed had overextended itself, and had little interest in mythology’ (2011, p. 537). Wilamowitz is significant because a number of students from his ‘Graeca’ fled Germany for the United States in the twentieth century and helped shape the study of ancient philosophy and classics there (the study of myth and religion included). In particular, Gregory Vlastos’s work reflects various forms of influence from Friedrich Solmsen. Vlastos’s 1952 paper ‘Theology and Philosophy in Early Greek Thought’ makes reference to Solmsen’s work, and Vlastos both collaborated with Solmsen and reviewed his scholarship. Vlastos also criticizes Cornford’s From Religion to Philosophy for ‘uncritical borrowings’ from the then-fashionable school of French sociology—more likely earlier members from around the turn of the century, such as Comte, Durkheim, and Mauss. For further comments on Wilamowitz and his perspective and influence on the study of Greek mythology, see Bremmer (2010); and for his connections with right-wing politics, see Flaig (2003).
- 67.
Most (2012) p. 15.
- 68.
- 69.
A criticism also mentioned by Mattei (1988) p. 67.
- 70.
- 71.
Compare Morgan’s evaluation with Fowler (2011).
- 72.
Morgan (2000) p. 180.
- 73.
Morgan (2000) p. 180.
- 74.
- 75.
See the opening chapter. Compare Stewart’s mythopoeic theory with the views of Henri and Henriette Antonia Frankfort (Segal [2004] pp. 40–42) and many aspects of the earlier German Romantic (Schelling, Creuzer, Herder, Heyne, and the Schlegels) and English Romantic traditions. For a study of Romanticism and the rise of interest in myth, see Louis (2005).
- 76.
In his 1935 review of Frutiger’s Les Mythes de Platon (1930), Hack contrasts Frutiger’s book with Stewart’s by stating that it is ‘a refreshing contrast to the Kantian cloudiness of Stewart’.
- 77.
See Wetzel (2002). Rowe (2007) argues that myth motivates moral behavior (also, see Rowe [2012]). Like many other commentators, Most also acknowledges the emotionally appealing advantage of myth, which he calls the psychagogic effect, and details a particular kind of emotional appeal characteristic of myth and associated with duty. Most states that ‘myth concludes an extended dialectical portion of the text, often so that the results that have already been obtained by logical means can now be repeated impressively in a mythical form’ (Most [2012] p. 19). Also, see Edmonds (2012). Edmonds argues that myth is moral allegory and represents the interpretation of myth as persuasive and illustrative. See Rowe (2012) for an example of myth as persuasion while, in addition, introducing different terms and perspectives relating to punishment; the myth of the Gorgias is described as an explanation that is easy for Callicles to understand (i.e., watered-down philosophy). He explains that myth is an allegory about the suffering of the unjust which conveys a particular perspective on punishment. However, Rowe disagrees with the modern view that myth is an understandable way of communicating philosophy and explains that the myth of the Gorgias is a kind of allegorical extension of the arguments. For more examples of the moral allegory perspective, see Annas (1982) pp. 125 and 138; Sedley (1990); Collobert (2012). For ancient interpreters, see Diogenes Laertius (1925) (3.80).
- 78.
- 79.
Tylor holds that myth was intended to explain not describe; cultures subscribing to myth attempt to tell us something about the causes of physical events. And the need to provide a theoretical scientific explanation, for Tylor, originates in the cognitive faculty or human mind. He contributed to the literal study of myth and developments in this field are reinforcements or reactions to his position. Segal lists a number of possible scientific reasons worth considering for why Tylor labels myth unscientific: first, the non-physical nature of personal causes; second, the inability to predict and test immaterial forces; third, the difficulty with generalizing mythical causes into a unity; and the final or teleological nature of personal causes (Segal [2002] pp. 21–22). All of these reasons presuppose that science is primarily concerned with the physical world and denounces or justifies a scientific theory based on the extent to which its premises can be empirically verified. Segal identifies the difficulties with applying this kind of scientific criteria since science is not necessarily physicalist and not all cultures that use myth as explanation are non-physicalist. Also, he argues that the criteria of predictability and generalization are not definitive standards—neither necessary nor sufficient conditions—with which to evaluate discourse as scientific or unscientific discourse. Also, compare Tylor with the views of evolutionary theorist Herbert Spencer. (For a summary of his approach to religion and his affinities with Tylor, see Capps [1995] pp. 74–83.)
Woloshyn bases his analysis of myth on Plato’s comments regarding the status of image, and the ‘divided line’ analogy, in the Republic. He concludes that images fall short of knowledge and equates myth with analogy, both of which are designed to induce dianoetic understanding. For Woloshyn, myths can be only an indirect apperception of the Forms, implying that their relationship with noesis involves weaker epistemic understanding and never a mutual cooperation toward arriving at knowledge (2008); also, for myth as an easier form of philosophy, see Partenie (2011) pp. 7–10. See Edmonds (2012) for myth as allegory for rational development through elenchus, and see Most (2012) (myth as discursive). Most recognizes mythos as access to truth complementary to logos. See Tarrant (2012) for comments on Plutarch spelling out Platonic philosophy through myth. See Collobert et al. (2012) for myth as grounded in knowledge and referring to philosophical propositions, argument, or form. Collobert et al. also refer to myth as rational complement to dialectic, a developed metaphor, and rational image—limited since it captures only a part and not the whole of the truth. For Collobert et al., myth is an image that cannot fully capture or represent knowledge (pp. 3–5).
- 80.
Cassirer (1955). Cassirer argues that underlying the creation of myth are a ‘mythical a priori’ and particular categories of mythic thought. He does not elaborate on the details of these features but deduces them from a unifying, harmony-inducing mythical ‘tonality’ that acts as a universal regulative force (p. 61). Cassirer conceives of the notion of ‘wholeness’ or ‘unities’ as an emotional impulse in contrast to Kant, who understands unities as logical or rational totalities. Cassirer believes that mythical thought grew out of an emotional drive and this proves that the a priori structure giving rise to myth and myths themselves are irrational, but that they appear to be logical. He explains in Mythical Thought that myth categorizes its material like science but instead of logical categories of genus it classifies them according to ‘the law of concrescence’ (p. 64). According to Cassirer, distinctly different elements can be unified under the principle of affect in which the elements both grow to relate to each other and become more alike. They are combined under one category by an irrational desire or need. It seems that logical force is at work in linking diverse mythical objects. But in mythical thinking, unlike a valid syllogism, one is simply unifying things by using an uncritical act of the will. Myth originates from the emotions and not from the intellect, so it is inferior to science, but using a Hegelian conception of the history of ideas, Cassirer argues that mythical thinking eventually led to scientific thought. Through his theory of myth, Cassirer tries to reconcile features of Romanticism with aspects of rationalism. He does not reduce the principle of unification and categorization of objects of mythical thought to the irrational but claims that the emotional source of mythical thinking, and therefore the content of myth, is irrational and false. For a concise analysis of Cassirer’s views on myth, see Doty (1986) pp. 174–175; Segal (2004) pp. 38–40.
- 81.
A strong influence from the cultural positivism of Stewart’s time is deeply embedded in his various explanations and use of vocabulary.
- 82.
Stewart (1905) pp. 4–6.
- 83.
- 84.
For other pre-twentieth century approaches that resist dichotomy or complicate and problematize the distinctions, consider Fontenelle, Vico, Fréret, Akenside, Lowth, Heyne, Herder, the Schlegel brothers, and Schelling. See Feldman and Richardson (1972).
- 85.
I am indebted to William Doty for listing some of these crucial questions and categorizing them in the way I have here (Doty [1986] pp. xvi–xvii). His methodology for understanding different kinds of myths shaped my approach to the study of Plato’s myths; however, I apply only a select number of theories, functions, definitions, and interpretative techniques for my interdisciplinary reading of myth and philosophy in Platonic dialogues.
- 86.
- 87.
- 88.
Flood (2002) pp. 183–186.
- 89.
Croce is credited for introducing the criticism and mistrust of the notion of genre into literary theory.
- 90.
For an explanation of the denunciation of the three fallacies in the study of literature by the New Critics, see Zima (1999) p. 22.
- 91.
Edelstein makes the point that the questions about the significance of Platonic myth, according to modern commentators, are closely related to problems pertaining to the relationship between reason and imagination/philosophy and poetry ([1949] p. 464). Similar to the problems arising from a focus on genre when addressing myth in the dialogues, overemphasis on the role and significance of imagination and poetic expression can also distract one from the unique and central features of Plato’s mythological project.
- 92.
- 93.
Different cultures, both transnationally and within the ancient Greek world, see myth in ways that do not correspond exactly to general views of myth debated by scholars working on the relation between mythos and logos. For an example of how a reductive view of ‘Greek Myth’ is used to understand Plato’s myths, see Most (2012) pp. 15–17. For a critical discussion of the relationship between the presentation of myth and truth in Greek literature, see Kobusch (2002). For the changing significance of myth according to various stages of ancient Greek culture, see Hatab (1990).
- 94.
Thinkers such as Roland Barthes argue for a polysemantic interpretation of literary texts, including philosophical texts (Barthes [1975]). I share his anti-metaphysical or anti-logocentric position on literature which illuminates the multiple dimensions and the multiple functions of literary texts and encourages appreciation of diverse features. For a brief explanation of the background to Barthes’s thought and similar thinkers, see Zima (1999) Chaps. 6 and 7. Also consider comments on universal approaches by Kirk (1984) pp. 59–60.
- 95.
Most commentators bundle all myths from Homer to Plato into one general genre with shared characteristics and as the target of one standard criticism (Edelstein [1949] p. 465). Plato’s attack on the poets in parts of some dialogues confirms that there was a general view of poetry held by philosophers. But this does not establish that it was the only perspective on the vast range of poetry available at the time. Nor does the fluctuating dissatisfaction of philosophers like Plato signify anything substantial about the intricacies and complexities associated with different myths, poets, and audiences. In Myth and Philosophy, Hatab illuminates the diversity of meaning and significance of myth in the ancient world.
- 96.
As early as Diogenes Laertius, commentators have referred to the practical use of myth for educative and rehabilitative purposes (DL 3.80). However, the epistemological complexity associated with learning from myths or the inherent argumentative logic in myth has not been explored completely. According to many interpretations, myth seems, paradoxically, to be useful for teaching very sophisticated moral ideals, assisting agents to recognize the virtue in practicing ethical behavior, but elementary or insufficient as a method for acquiring knowledge.
- 97.
The influential ‘myth and ritual’ school championed by anthropologist Sir James Frazer and W. Robertson Smith is one of the best representatives of Enlightenment-influenced methods of interpretation. For a brief description and criticism of Frazer’s approach to myth, see Coupe (2006) pp. 22–26. Also, see Capps (1995) pp. 71–74. And Chap. 3 in Doty (1986).
- 98.
Segal (2004) pp. 2–4.
- 99.
Capps (1995) p. xvi.
- 100.
Consider the methodology employed by Colloud-Streit (2005), which is sensitive to the problems associated with definition and function.
- 101.
- 102.
Morgan (2000) p. 5.
- 103.
In his forward to Feldman and Richardson’s The Rise of Modern Mythology: 1680–1860 (1972), Eliade indicates the need for a comprehensive source book of the largely Max Müller-inspired era of mythography (i.e., the nineteenth/twentieth century). He states that most authors of this period are driven by a ‘scientific’ method in their study of myth (p. xii); also, see Blok (1994) and Bremmer (2011) pp. 533–538; and consider Fourmont’s earlier contribution to the approach that combines philology with comparative mythology in Feldman and Richardson (1972) pp. 83–84); for the similarities between Max Müller’s views of language and Heyne’s notion of the ‘disease of language’, see Feldman and Richardson (1972) p. 217. For Müller’s contribution to myth studies, see his foundational work Introduction to the Science of Religion: four lectures delivered at the Royal Institution, February 19 (1882). For critical commentary of his work and influence, see Feldman and Richardson (1972) p. 481; Lincoln (1999) pp. 66–71; Capps (1995) pp. 86–71.
Bibliography
Primary Texts
Diogenes Laertius. (1925). Lives of Eminent Philosophers, Trans. by R.D. Hicks. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Secondary Texts
Alcoff, L.M. and Mendieta, E. (eds.). (2000). Thinking from the Underside of History: Enrique Dussel’s Philosophy of Liberation. Lanham: Roman & Littlefield.
Alcoff, L.M. and Caputo, J.D. (eds.). (2011). Feminism, Sexuality, and the Return of Religion. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Anderson, P.S. (2002). ‘Myth and Feminist Philosophy’ in Thinking Through Myths – Philosophical Perspectives. K. Schilbrack (ed.) London: Routledge, 101–122.
Anderson, D.G. (2014). ‘Cultures of Reciprocity and Cultures of Control in the Circumpolar North’. Journal of Northern Studies. 9 (2): 11–27.
Annas, J. (1982). ‘Plato’s Myths of Judgment’, Phronesis 27 (2): 119–143.
Arashiro, Z. and Barahona, M. (eds.). (2015). Women in Academia Crossing North–south Borders. Lanham: Lexington Books.
Araújo, M. and Maeso, S. (eds.). (2015). Eurocentrism, Racism and Knowledge: Debates on History and Power in Europe and the Americas. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Barash, J. A. (2011). ‘Myth in History, Philosophy of History as Myth: On the Ambivalence of Hans Blumenberg’s Interpretation of Ernst Cassirer’s Theory of Myth’, History and Theory 50: 328–340.
Barthes, R. (1975). S/Z An Essay. London: Hill and Wang.
Bernal, M. (1987). ‘The Fabrication of Ancient Greece, 1785–1985’, in Black Athena: The Afro-Asiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, Volume I. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Bernal, M. (1991). ‘The Archaeological and Documentary Evidence’, in Black Athena: The Afro-Asiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, Volume II. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Bernal, M. (2001). Black Athena Writes Back: Martine Bernal Responds to his Critics. D.C. Moore (ed.). Durham: Duke University Press.
Bernal, M. (2006). ‘The Linguistic Evidence’, in Black Athena: The Afro-Asiatic Roots of Classical Civilization, Volume III. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
Bernasconi, R. (1997). ‘Philosophy’s Paradoxical Parochialism: The Reinvention of Philosophy as Greek’, in Cultural Readings of Imperialism. K. Ansell-Pearson, B. Parry and J. Squires (eds.). London: Lawrence & Wishart.
Bernasconi, R. (Spring 1995a). ‘On Heidegger’s other sins of omission: his exclusion of Asian thought from the origins of Occidental metaphysics and his denial of the possibility of Christian philosophy’, American Catholic Philosophical Quarterly 69 (2): 333–350.
Bernasconi, R. (October 1995b). ‘Heidegger and the invention of the Western philosophical tradition’, Journal of the British Society for Phenomenology 26 (3): 240–254.
Bernasconi, R. (2000). ‘Krimskrams: Hegel and the current controversy about the beginnings of philosophy’, in Interrogating the Tradition: Hermeneutics and the History of Philosophy. C.E. Scott and J. Salis (eds.). Albany: SUNY Press, 191–208.
Bernasconi, R. (2002). ‘Religious Philosophy: Hegel’s occasional perplexity in the face of the distinction between philosophy and religion’, The Bulletin of the Hegel Society of Great Britain 45/46: 1–15.
Bernasconi, R. (2003). ‘With what must the history of philosophy begin? Hegel’s role in the debate on the place of India within the history of philosophy’, in Hegel’s History of Philosophy: New Interpretations. D.A. Duquette (ed.). Albany: SUNY Press.
Blok, J. H. (1994). ‘Quest for a Scientific Mythology: F. Creuzer and K.O. Müller on History and Myth’, History and Theory, Vol. 33. No. 4, Theme Issue 33: Proof and Persuasion in History, 26–52.
Blondell, R. (2002). The Play of Characters in Plato’s Dialogues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bottici, C. (2007). A Philosophy of Political Myth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bottici, C. and Challand, B. (2010). The Myth of the Clash of Civilizations. New York: Routledge.
Bremmer, J.N. (2010). The Greek Gods in the Twentieth Century, in J.N. Bremmer and A. Erskine (eds.). The Gods of Ancient Greece: Identities and Transformations. Edinburg: Edinburg University Press.
Bremmer, J.N. (2011). ‘A Brief History of the Study of Greek Mythology’, in A Companion to Greek Mythology. K. Dowden and N. Livingstone (eds.) Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 527–547.
Brennan, T. (2014). Borrowed Light: Vico, Hegel, and the Colonies. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Brisson, L. (1998). Plato the Myth Maker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Brisson, L. (2006). ‘Platon et la cosmologie’, Cahiers critiques de philosophie 3: 31–43.
Brochard, V. (1974). ‘Les mythes dans la philsophie de Platon’, Etudes de philosophie ancienne et la philosophie modern: 46–59.
Buck-Morrs, S. (Summer 2000). ‘Hegel and Haiti’, Critical Inquiry 26 (4): 821–865.
Burkert, W. (2007). Babylon, Memphis, Persepolis: Eastern Contexts of Greek Culture. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Campbell, J. (1949). The Hero with a Thousand Faces. New York: Pantheon Books.
Capps, W.H. (1995). Religious Studies, The Making of a Discipline. Minneapolis: Fortress Press.
Carroll, N. (2001). ‘Interpretation, History, and Narrative’, in Beyond Aesthetics – Philosophical Essays, N. Carroll (ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 133–156.
Cassirer, E. (1946). Language and Myth. S.K. Langer (trans.). New York: Harper & Bros.
Cassirer, E. (1955). The Philosophy of Symbolic Forms, Vol. 2: Mythical Thought. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Cassirer, E. (1961). Myth of the State. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Chance, J. (1994). Medieval Mythography: From Roman North Africa to the School of Chartes, AD 433–1177. Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Coleman, D., Glanville, E.G., Hasan, W. and Kramer-Hamstra, A. (eds.). (2012a). Countering Displacements: The Creativity and Resilience of Indigenous and Refugee-ed Peoples. Alberta: The University of Alberta Press.
Collobert, C. (2012). ‘Epistemic Status and Functions of Platonic Myth’, in Plato and Myth: Studies on the Use and Status of Platonic Myth. C. Collobert, P. Destrée, F.J. Gonzalez (eds.). Leiden: Brill, 87–108.
Collobert, C., Destrée, P. and Gonzalez, F.J. (2012). ‘Introduction’, in Plato and Myth: Studies on the Use and Status of Platonic Myth. C. Collobert, P. Destrée, and F.J. Gonzalez. (eds.). Leiden: Brill, 1–12.
Colloud-Streit, M. (2005). Funf platonische Mythen im Verhaltnis zu ihrem Textumfeldern. Fribourg: Academic Press.
Compton, T.M. (2006). Victim of the Muses – Poet as Scapegoat, Warrior and Hero in Greco-Roman and Indo-European Myth and History. Washington D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies.
Connell, R. (2007). Southern Theory: The Global Dynamics of Knowledge in Social Sciences. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin.
Coupe, L. (2006). Myth. London: Routledge.
Cruikshank, J. (1998). The Social Life of Stories. Narrative and Knowledge in Northern Canada. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press and Vancouver, UBC Pres.
Csapo, E. (2005). Theories of Mythology. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Denzin, N.K., Lincoln, Y.S. and Smith, L.T. (2008). Handbook of Critical and Indigenous Methodologies. London: Sage Publications.
de Sousa Santos, B. (2014). Epistemologies of the South: Justice Against Epistemicide. London: Routledge.
Detienne, M. (1981). L’Invention de la mythologie. Paris: Gallimard.
Detienne, M. (2009). Les grecs et nous. Paris: Perrin.
Detienne, M. (1972). The Gardens of Adonis: Spices in Greek Mythology. Trans. by J. Lloyd and into. by J. Vernant. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Doty, W. (1986). Mythography. Alabama: University Alabama Press.
Doty, W. (2003) ‘What’s a Myth? Nomological, Topological, and Taxonomic Explorations’, Soundings: An Interdisciplinary Journal. Vol. 86, No. ¾ (Fall/Winter): 391–419.
Dundes. A. (ed.). (1984). Sacred Narrative. Readings in the Theory of Myth. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Edelstein, L. (1949). ‘The Function of the Myth in Plato’s Philosophy’, Journal of the History of Ideas 10 (4): 463–481.
Edmonds, III, R.G. (2012). ‘Whip Scars on the Naked Soul: Myth and Elenchus in Plato’s Gorgias’, in Plato and Myth: Studies on the Use and Status of Platonic Myth. C. Collobert, P. Destrée, F.J. Gonzalez (eds.). Leiden: Brill, 165–186.
Emeagwali, G. and Sefa Dei, G.J. (eds.). (2014). African Indigenous Knowledge and the Disciplines. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
Feldman, B. and Richardson, R.D. (1972). The Rise of Modern Mythology: 1680–1860. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Flaig, E. (2003). ‘Towards ‘Rassenhygiene’: Wilamowitz and the German New Right’, in Out of Arcadia: Classics and Politics in Germany in the Age of Burckhardt, Nietzsche and Wilamowitz. I. Goldenhard, I. and M. Ruehl. (eds). London: Institute of Classical Studies, 105–129.
Flood, C. (2002). ‘Myth and Ideology’, in Thinking Through Myths – Philosophical Perspectives. K. Schilbrack (ed.). London: Routledge, 174–190.
Fowler, R.L. (2011) ‘Mythos and Logos’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 131: 45–66.
Fredericks, S.C. (1980) ‘Greek Mythology in Modern Science Fiction’, in Classical Mythology in Twentieth Century Thought and Fiction. W. Aycock and T. Klein (eds.). Lubbock: Texas Tech Press.
Frutiger, P. (1930). Mythes de Platon: Etude philosophique et litteraire. Paris: Librairie Felix Alcan.
Frye, N. (1957). Anatomy of Criticism: Four Essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gantz, T. (1993). Early Greek Myth: A Guide to Literary and Artistic Sources. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Gerhart, M. and Russell, A.M. (2002). ‘Myth and Public Science’, in Thinking Through Myths – Philosophical Perspectives. K. Schilbrack (ed.). London: Routledge, 191–206.
Gilroy, P. (1993). The Black Atlantic: Modernity and Double Consciousness. London: Verso.
Goody, J. (2007). The Theft of History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gould, E. (1981). Mythical Intentions in Modern Literature. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Gould, T. (1990). The Ancient Quarrel between Poetry and Philosophy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Grosfoguel, R. (2013). ‘The Structure of Knowledge in Westernized Universities: Epistemic Racism/Sexism and the Four Genocides/Epistemicides of the Long 16th Century’, Human Architecture: Journal of the Sociology of Self-Knowledge 11 (1): 73–90.
Grounds, R.A., Tinker, G.E. and Wilkins, D.E. (eds). (2003). Native Voices: American Indian Identity and Resistance. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
Halbfass, W. (1998). India and Europe: An Essay in Understanding. Albany: SUNY Press.
Hendry, J. and Fitznor, L. (eds.). (2012). Anthropologists, Indigenous Scholars and the Research Endevour: Seeking Bridges Toward Mutual Respect. New York: Routledge.
Hatab, L. (1990). Myth and Philosophy: A Contest of Truths. Illinois: Open Court Publishing Company.
Hatab, L. (2005). Nietzsche’s Life Sentence: Coming to Terms with Eternal Recurrence. New York: Routledge.
Jackson, S.N. (2012). Creole Indigeneity: Between Myth and Nation in the Caribbean. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Janka, M. (2002). ‘Sematik und Kontext: Mythos and Verwandtes im Corpus Platonicum’ in Platon als Mythologe. Neue Interpretationen zu den Mythen in Platons Dialogen. M. Janka and C. Schafer (eds). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 29–43.
Jean-Marie, V. (2013). ‘Kant and Trouillot on the Unthinkability of the Haitian Revolution’, Souls 15 (3): 241–257.
King, R. (1999). Indian Philosophy: An Introduction to Hindu and Buddhist Thought. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Kirk, G.S. (1970). Myth: Its Meaning and Functions in Ancient and Other Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kirk, G.S. (1984). ‘On Defining Myths’, in Sacred Narratives: Readings in the Theory of Myth. A. Dundes (ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press, 53–61.
Kobusch, T. (2002). ‘Die Wiederkehr des Mythos. Zur Funktion des Mythos in Platons Denken und in der Philosophie der Gegenwart’, in Platon als Mythologe. Neue Interpretationen zu den Mythen in Platons Dialogen. M. Janka and C. Schafer (eds). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 44–57.
Kovach, M. (2009). Indigenous Methodologies: Characteristics, Conversations, and Contexts. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Kovacs, G. and Marshall, C.W. (eds.). (2011). Classics and Comics. Classical Presences. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Le Doeuff, M. (1989). The Philosophical Imaginary. Stanford: The Athlone Press.
Lefkowitz, M.R. and Rogers, G.M. (eds.). (1996). Black Athena Revisited. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Lentricchia, F. (1980). After the New Criticism. London: University of Chicago Press.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1955). ‘The Structural Study of Myth’, The Journal of American Folklore 68 (270): 428–444.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1963). Structural Anthropology. C. Jacobson and B.G. Schoepf (trans.). New York: Basic Books.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1966). The Savage Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1973). Totemism. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.
Levin, S.B. (2001). The Ancient Quarrel Between Philosophy and Poetry Revisited: Plato and the Greek Literary Tradition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lincoln, B. (1999). Theorizing Myth: Narrative, Ideology, and Scholarship. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Louis, M.K. (2005). ‘Gods and Mysteries: The Revival of Paganism and the Remaking of Mythography through the Nineteenth Century’, Victorian Studies 47 (3): 329–361.
Maaka, R.C.A. and Anderson, C. (eds.). (2006). The Indigenous Experience: Global Perspectives. Ontario: Canadian Scholars’ Press.
Marchand, S.L. and Grafton, A. (1997). ‘Martin Bernal and His Critics’, Arion 5 (2): 1–35.
Martin, K.L. (2003). ‘Ways of Knowing, Ways of Being and Ways of Doing: a theoretical framework and methods for Indigenous re-search and Indigenist research’, in ‘Voicing Dissent’ New Talents 21C: Next Generation Australian Studies. K. McWilliam, P. Stephenson and G. Thomspon (eds.). Journal of Australian Studies, No. 76: 203–214.
Martin, K.L. (2008). Please Knock Before You Enter: Aboriginal Regulation of Outsiders and the Implications for Researchers. Teneriffe, Qld: Post Pressed.
Mattei, J. (1988). ‘The Theatre of Myth in Plato’, in Platonic Writings, Platonic Readings. C.L Griswold Jr., (ed.). New York: Routledge.
Mehta, J.L. (1985). ‘The Concept of Progress’, in India and the West – Selected Essays of J.L. Mehta. California: Scholars Pr.
Mignolo, W. (2011). The Darker Side of Western Modernity: Global Futures, Decolonial Options. Durham: Duke University Press Books.
Mills, C.W. (1997). The Racial Contract. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Moellendorf, D. (Summer 1992). ‘Racism and rationality in Hegel’s philosophy of subjective spirit’, History of Political Thought 13 (2): 243–255.
Moors, K. (1982). Platonic Myth: An Introductory Study. Washinton, DC: University Press of America.
Morgan, K.A. (2000). Myth and Philosophy from the pre-Socratics to Plato. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Most, G. (2012). ‘Plato’s Exoteric Myths’, in Plato and Myth: Studies on the Use and Status of Platonic Myth. C. Collobert, P. Destrée, F.J. Gonzalez (eds.). Leiden: Brill, 13–24.
Nakata, M. (2007). Disciplining the Savages – Savaging the Disciplines. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.
Nakata, M. (1998). ‘Anthropological Texts and Indigenous Standpoints’, in Australian Aboriginal Studies 2: 3–12.
Nakata, M. (2004). ‘Ongoing Conversations about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research Agendas and Directions’, in Australian Journal of Indigenous Education, The 33: 1–6.
Nakata, N.M., Nakata, V., Keech, S. and Bolt, R. (2012). ‘Decolonial Goals and Pedagogies for Indigenous Studies’, in Decolonization: Indigeneity, Education & Society 1 (1): 120–140.
Park, P.K.J. (2013). Africa, Asia, and the Philosophy of History: Racism in the Formation of the Philosophical Canon, 1780–1830. Albany: SUNY Press.
Paul, H. (2009). ‘Hayden White and the Crisis of Historicism’, in: Re-Figuring Hayden White. F. Ankersmit, E. Domańska, and H. Kellner (eds.). Stanford: Stanford University Press, 54–73.
Propp, V. (1968). Morphology of the Folktale, second edition. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Quijano, A. (2007). ‘Coloniality and Modernity/Rationality’, Cultural Studies 21 (2–3): 168–178.
Rigney, L. (2006). ‘Indigenist Research and Aboriginal Australia’, in Indigenist Peoples’ Wisdom and Power: Affirming Our Knowledge Through Narratives.’ J.E. Kunnie and N.I. Goduka (eds.). Hampshire: Ashgate, 32–50.
Rosen, S. (1988). The Quarrel Between Philosophy and Poetry: Studies in Ancient Thought. New York: Routledge.
Rowe, C.J. (2007). Plato and the Art of Philosophical Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rowe, C.J. (2012). ‘The Status of Myth in the Gorgias or: Taking Plato Seriously’, in Plato and Myth: Studies on the Use and Status of Platonic Myth. C. Collobert, P. Destrée, F.J. Gonzalez (eds.). Leiden: Brill, 187–198.
Saal, B. (2013). ‘How to Leave Modernity Behind: The Relationship Between Colonialism and Enlightenment, and the Possibility of Altermodern Decoloniality’, Budhi: A Journal of Ideas and Culture 17 (1): 49–80.
Schmitt, A. (2002). ‘Mythos und Vernunft bei Platon’ in Platon als Mythologe. Neue Interpretationen zu den Mythen in Platons Dialogen. M. Janka and C. Schafer (eds). Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 290–309.
Schmitz, T.A. (2007). Modern Literary Theory and Ancient Texts. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Sedley, D. (1990). ‘Teleology and Myth in the Phaedo’, in Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 5. C. Partenie (ed.): 359–83.
Segal, R.A. (ed.). (1990). In Quest of the Hero. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Segal, R.A. (1999). Theorizing About Myth. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Segal, R.A. (2004). Myth: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Segal, R.A. (2002). ‘Myth as Primitive Philosophy: The Case of E.B. Tylor’ in Thinking Through Myths – Philosophical Perspectives. K. Schilbrack (ed.). London: Routledge, 18–45.
Semali, L. M., & Kincheloe, J. L. (1999). ‘Introduction: What is indigenous knowledge and why should we study it?’ in What is indigenous knowledge? Voices from the academy (pp. 3–57). L. M. Semali, ed. & J. L. Kincheloe (Eds.) New York: Falmer.
Sharpe, E.J. (1975). Comparative Religion: A History. London: Macmillan Pub Co.
Sillitoe, P. (2005). Indigenous Studies and Engaged Anthropology: The Collaborative Moment. Farnham: Ashgate.
Simmons, E. (2013). Indigenous Earth: Praxis and Transformation. Penticton, BC: Theytus Books.
Smith, L. T. (1999). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples. Dunedin, New Zealand: University of Otago Press.
Smith, C. and Wobst, H.M. (2005). Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice. New York: Routledge.
Stewart, J.A. (trans.) (1905). The Myths of Plato. London: Centaur Press.
Tarrant, H. (2012). ‘Logos, Mythos, and Explanatory Values. From the Protagoras to the Timaeus-Critias’, in Plato and Myth: Studies on the Use and Status of Platonic Myth. C. Collobert, P. Destrée, F.J. Gonzalez (eds.). Leiden: Brill, 47–66.
Tofighian, O. (2010). ‘Beyond the Myth/Philosophy Dichotomy. Foundations for an Interdependent Perspective’, Forum Philosophicum 15 (1): 175–190.
Vernant, J. and Vidal-Naquet, P. (1990). La Grèce ancienne - Du mythe à la raison, coll. Points. Paris: Le Seuil.
Vernant, J. and Vidal-Naquet, P. (1991). La Grèce ancienne - L’espace et le temps, coll. Points. Paris: Le Seuil.
Vernant, J. and Vidal-Naquet, P. (1992). La Grèce ancienne - Rites de passage et transgressions, coll. Points. Paris: Le Seuil.
Vernant, J. and Vidal-Naquet, P. (2000). Mythe et tragédie en Grèce ancienne. Paris: La Découverte.
Vlastos, G. (1952). ‘Theology and philosophy in early Greek thought’, in D.W. Graham (ed.). (1993). Studies in Greek Philosophy: The Presocratics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Weinbaum, A.E. (2004). Wayward Reproductions: Genealogies of Race and Nation in Transatlantic Modern Thought. Durham: Duke University Press.
Wetzel, J. (2002). ‘Myth and Moral Philosophy’, in Thinking through Myths – Philosophical Perspectives. K. Schilbrack (ed.). London: Routledge, 123–141.
White, H. (1973). Metahistory: The Historical Imagination in Nineteenth-century Europe. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
White, H. (2000). Figural Realism – Studies in the Mimesis Effect. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Witzel, E.J.M. (2012). The Origins of the World’s Mythologies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Woloshyn, C. (2008). ‘Myth, Image, and Dianoia, Situating the Myth of Er on the Divided Line’, presented at the conference The Uses, Functions and Status of Platonic Myth, May 28–31, University of Ottawa.
Wynter, S. (2003). “Unsettling the Coloniality of Being/Power/Truth/Freedom: Towards the Human, After Man, Its Overrepresentation -- An Argument”, in The New Centennial Review, 3 (3): 257–337.
Zima, P.V. (1999). The Philosophy of Modern Literary Theory. London: Athlone Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tofighian, O. (2016). Myth and Philosophy on Stage: Connections, Divisions, and Interdependence. In: Myth and Philosophy in Platonic Dialogues. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58044-3_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58044-3_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-58043-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-58044-3
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)