Plato the Myth Maker (by Luc Brisson), translated, edited, and with an introduction by Gerard Naddaf, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998, lvi +188pp, 1998
This is my fifty-page introduction to my English translation and edition of Luc Brisson’s Plato t... more This is my fifty-page introduction to my English translation and edition of Luc Brisson’s Plato the Myth Maker, University of Chicago Press, 1998. The aim of the introduction is to show the originality and importance both of Brisson’s method and of Plato’s analysis in the context of contemporary debates over the origin and evolution of the oral tradition, both before and after the advent of literacy in Ancient Greece.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Papers
In this monograph, I endeavour to demonstrate the hypothesis that the primary aim of Anaximander’s book, the first philosophical prose treatise, is to explain (or investigate) from a rational/naturalistic perspective the history of the present order of things (natural and social) from its origins to the author’s own time. I maintain that this is also the aim of cosmogonical myths in general. They are traditional explanations of how the world order (natural and social) originated for the social group. I argue that Anaximander is attempting to accomplish the same end. Anaximander’s cosmogonical and cosmological perspectives were developed in several previous studies (and subsequent publications since then). Here I attempt to put Anaximander’s anthropogonical and politogonical features into perspective. To illustrate Anaximander’s new revolutionary approach, I begin with a synopsis of the major Greek mythical approaches to the origin of humanity. I then show that for Anaximander living beings emerge from a sort of primeval moisture or slime activated by the heat of the sun after the initial formation of the universe. I argue that the doxographical evidence suggests that Anaximander defended a doctrine of the transformation of species, and that climatic conditions were behind the numerous changes or modifications in animals. In conjunction, I argue that Anaximander recognized a connection between his hypothesis of a drying earth and his zoogonical theories. Moreover, I show that Anaximander surmised for valid reasons that humans did not undergo a transformation completely similar to that of other animal species. I contend that Anaximander’s account was so audacious that it was not really surpassed until Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck proposed in 1809 the first coherent theory of the evolution of species.
Before reconstructing and examining Anaximander’s own account of the development of society, I summarize how this notion was perceived before the advent of speculative thought. I then provide a historical analysis of the primary causes that gave rise to the polis or city-state. The importance of the polis resides in the fact that without it, Western philosophy and science, and thus the new rational/naturalistic approach, may not have seen the light of day. I pay particularly close attention to the polis of Miletus. Although tradition situates the birth of philosophy in Miletus, scholars have too often ignored its history or have limited it to a few cursory remarks. A close analysis of the history of Miletos reveals some important and interesting facts regarding the birth of philosophy. I show that the long period of extreme social unrest mentioned by Herodotus and others and situated during Anaximander’s period is unfounded in light of other events. I also analyze the close military and economic ties that existed between Miletus and Egypt from the middle of the seventh century BCE to the time of Anaximander. In conjunction, I trace the Greek belief that Egypt was both the oldest civilization and the cradle of civilization to the time of Anaximander. I argue that it may have originated with Anaximander himself. Anaximander was no armchair philosopher. He formulated his theory through investigation and discovery and traveled extensively, notably to Egypt via Naucratis. In this regard, I attempt to show that Egypt, or more precisely, the Nile Delta, was in certain respects, for Anaximander, the center of the universe, for both humanity and civilization originated here. I believe there is a good deal of circumstantial evidence for this, and I attempt to put this evidence into perspective, notably in my reconstruction of Anaximander’s famous map of the Oikoumenê or inhabited world which, in the final analysis, was constructed to show how and why civilization originated and propagated from Egypt. I argue that some of the evidence corroborates Martin Bernal’s claims regarding the relation between Greece and Egypt, albeit for different reasons. It’s all part of what one author has called “the Egyptian mirage in ancient Greece.”
This paper is the penultimate version of my contribution to a forthcoming Festschrift in honor of Anthony Preus (edited by D.M. Spitzer and under contract, Routledge). It is a much-revised version of an invited talk for the XII International Ontology Conference on Physics and Ontology in San Sebastian, Spain, October 2-6, 2018). I argue that “natural teleology” as Nagel understands it has a historical precedent in what is called the discovery or invention of nature or physis which is at the foundation of early Greek philosophy and science. It then led some thinkers to affirm reductive materialism, which in turn generated a reaction in the form of theism as a philosophical position, a theism grounded in arguments for the existence of God/gods. The aim of this paper is to introduce the philosophers and scientists to the different parties in the original dispute and to their terms of reference. I also discuss in context the emergence of a new form of thinking, if not a new kind of Homo sapiens: the advent of Homo philosophicus, and the self-conscious reflexivity this being presupposes, and without which Greek philosophy and science may not have seen the light of day.
In this monograph, I endeavour to demonstrate the hypothesis that the primary aim of Anaximander’s book, the first philosophical prose treatise, is to explain (or investigate) from a rational/naturalistic perspective the history of the present order of things (natural and social) from its origins to the author’s own time. I maintain that this is also the aim of cosmogonical myths in general. They are traditional explanations of how the world order (natural and social) originated for the social group. I argue that Anaximander is attempting to accomplish the same end. Anaximander’s cosmogonical and cosmological perspectives were developed in several previous studies (and subsequent publications since then). Here I attempt to put Anaximander’s anthropogonical and politogonical features into perspective. To illustrate Anaximander’s new revolutionary approach, I begin with a synopsis of the major Greek mythical approaches to the origin of humanity. I then show that for Anaximander living beings emerge from a sort of primeval moisture or slime activated by the heat of the sun after the initial formation of the universe. I argue that the doxographical evidence suggests that Anaximander defended a doctrine of the transformation of species, and that climatic conditions were behind the numerous changes or modifications in animals. In conjunction, I argue that Anaximander recognized a connection between his hypothesis of a drying earth and his zoogonical theories. Moreover, I show that Anaximander surmised for valid reasons that humans did not undergo a transformation completely similar to that of other animal species. I contend that Anaximander’s account was so audacious that it was not really surpassed until Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck proposed in 1809 the first coherent theory of the evolution of species.
Before reconstructing and examining Anaximander’s own account of the development of society, I summarize how this notion was perceived before the advent of speculative thought. I then provide a historical analysis of the primary causes that gave rise to the polis or city-state. The importance of the polis resides in the fact that without it, Western philosophy and science, and thus the new rational/naturalistic approach, may not have seen the light of day. I pay particularly close attention to the polis of Miletus. Although tradition situates the birth of philosophy in Miletus, scholars have too often ignored its history or have limited it to a few cursory remarks. A close analysis of the history of Miletos reveals some important and interesting facts regarding the birth of philosophy. I show that the long period of extreme social unrest mentioned by Herodotus and others and situated during Anaximander’s period is unfounded in light of other events. I also analyze the close military and economic ties that existed between Miletus and Egypt from the middle of the seventh century BCE to the time of Anaximander. In conjunction, I trace the Greek belief that Egypt was both the oldest civilization and the cradle of civilization to the time of Anaximander. I argue that it may have originated with Anaximander himself. Anaximander was no armchair philosopher. He formulated his theory through investigation and discovery and traveled extensively, notably to Egypt via Naucratis. In this regard, I attempt to show that Egypt, or more precisely, the Nile Delta, was in certain respects, for Anaximander, the center of the universe, for both humanity and civilization originated here. I believe there is a good deal of circumstantial evidence for this, and I attempt to put this evidence into perspective, notably in my reconstruction of Anaximander’s famous map of the Oikoumenê or inhabited world which, in the final analysis, was constructed to show how and why civilization originated and propagated from Egypt. I argue that some of the evidence corroborates Martin Bernal’s claims regarding the relation between Greece and Egypt, albeit for different reasons. It’s all part of what one author has called “the Egyptian mirage in ancient Greece.”
This paper is the penultimate version of my contribution to a forthcoming Festschrift in honor of Anthony Preus (edited by D.M. Spitzer and under contract, Routledge). It is a much-revised version of an invited talk for the XII International Ontology Conference on Physics and Ontology in San Sebastian, Spain, October 2-6, 2018). I argue that “natural teleology” as Nagel understands it has a historical precedent in what is called the discovery or invention of nature or physis which is at the foundation of early Greek philosophy and science. It then led some thinkers to affirm reductive materialism, which in turn generated a reaction in the form of theism as a philosophical position, a theism grounded in arguments for the existence of God/gods. The aim of this paper is to introduce the philosophers and scientists to the different parties in the original dispute and to their terms of reference. I also discuss in context the emergence of a new form of thinking, if not a new kind of Homo sapiens: the advent of Homo philosophicus, and the self-conscious reflexivity this being presupposes, and without which Greek philosophy and science may not have seen the light of day.
Greek cosmological models are grounded in an explicit concept of nature (phusis). This concept is inseparable from the peri phuseôs tradition, which seeks to explain how the present order of things was established from beginning to end. In this essay, I try to capture the essence of the cosmological model for each of the primary figures in the historical period in question, one of the richest in world history. I begin with each figure’s view on the fundamental principle/s (phusis as archê) underlying the present order of things and end with the figure’s perspective on the structure and ‘destiny’ of the kosmos. Although the variations are extraordinary, the Greek cosmologists all shared the firm conviction that the world is wholly ‘natural’, not partly natural and partly supernatural. Nonetheless, each felt the need to refute the innovations of his predecessors with what he considered a better solution. Although this can give the impression that there were no ‘scientific’ discoveries with which all could agree, we see that some discoveries, connected with astronomy, eventually were taken for granted by all. Astronomy (speculative, observational, and mathematical) have a prominent place in this essay. Ironically, it also begins and ends with astronomy’s relation to astrology, but not because the Greeks were interested in foretelling the future by studying the stars. Rather, it is important to understand the history behind the phenomenon of astrology and how it was connected with astronomy. With this in mind, this essay starts with the Mesopotamians. Their creation story, like the peri phuseôs accounts, explains the origin of the present order of things—including the origin of humanity—and in fact culminates with a socio-political model that legitimates the role of the king and the state. In this context astronomy/astrology has a critical purpose: it is the key to interpreting the will of the gods.
This was an invited paper for a panel on “Care of the self in early Greek philosophy” organized by Annie Larivée for the 80th Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences, University of New Brunswick, May 2011. I’ve added a few references to my more recent work on the topic.
The position of Plato and Socrates thus accords with the standard naturalist interpretation of the Presocratics—that they believed the world functioned entirely according to natural laws. I agree with this interpretation, but I am nonetheless intrigued by the question of what the early Greek philosophers thought they were doing when they entered a temple to pray and/or sacrifice to the gods. We must consider it more than probable that they did so, notwithstanding their bold and revolutionary thesis. It is highly unlikely that the early Greek philosophers (before 450 BC) would have even entertained notions that we associate with atheism. In this regard, I tend to agree with Andrew Gregory’s claim in his recent book The Presocratics and the Supernatural (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013) that “not only could presocratic intellectuals devise their own theologies apart from the Greek religious tradition, they could devise their own means of prayer and notions of piety as well, entirely in accord with their naturalistic theologies” (109). But what were those means of prayer and notions of piety?
In this paper I’ll argue that the answer lies in the strong similarity between the Presocratics and the Platonic texts cited above. In both instances, it is by seeing the connection of phusis with the divine that we gain both a nous of our own and a model to follow—and thus the capacity to act rationally and piously, by conforming our actions to the divine order of the universe. I’ll thus be examining in context a number of the early Greek natural philosophers, but also, in context, Socrates famous “autobiographical” passage in the Phaedo (96a-99d) in which Socrates describes his enthusiasm for natural philosophy (peri phuseôs historia) when he was young (neos ôn, 96a6). We’ll see that in many respects the natural philosophers were all engaged in a kind of theologia naturalis, but perhaps closer to what Thomas Nagel calls natural teleology. Finally, I’ll examine in context the notion and roles of hymns.
These are the works cited in the paper, the published version of which has an integrated bibliography at the end of the volume.
John Burnet, Plato: Euthyphro, Apology of Socrates, Crito, ed. with notes, Oxford: Clarendon Paperbacks, 1924/1977.
Danial Graham, “Socrates on Samos,” Classical Quarterly 58 (2008): 308–13.
R. Hackforth, Plato’s Phaedo, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1955.
Pierre Hadot, “The Figure of Socrates,” in Philosophy as a Way of Life,” edited and with an Introduction by Arnold I. Davidson, London: Blackwell Publishing, 1995/2015.
Thomas Hubbard, “Peer Homosexuality,” in A Companion to Greek and Roman Sexualities, ed. Thomas K. Hubbard, London: Wiley Blackwell, 128-49.
Charles Kahn, Plato and the Socratic Dialogue: The Philosophic Use of a Literary Form, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
Andrew Lear, “Ancient Pederasty: An Introduction,” in A Companion to Greek and Roman Sexualities, ed. Thomas K. Hubbard, London: Wiley Blackwell, 2014, 102-27.
Andrew Lear, “Was pederasty problematized”? in Sex in Antiquity: Exploring Gender and Sexuality in the Ancient World, ed. Mark Masterson, Nancy Sorkin Rabinowitz and James Robson, London: Routledge, 2015, 115-36.
Gerard Naddaf, The Greek Concept of Nature, Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005.
Gerard Naddaf, “The young ‘historical’ Socrates in the Apology and Symposium,” in Selected Papers from the Tenth Symposium Platonicum: The Symposium, ed. Mauro Tulli and Gabriele Cornelli, Sankt Augustin: Academia Verlag, 2015, 448-53.
Christopher Rowe, Plato. Phaedo, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
David Sedley, Creationism and its Critics in Antiquity, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 2007.
The Discovery of Physis and the First Secular Theories of Everything
Gerard Naddaf, York University
Invited Paper
XIII International Ontology Congress
Physics and Ontology
San Sebastian, October 2-6, 2018
In contemporary science and philosophy, the orthodox view is to consider “reductive materialism” the only legitimate way of accounting for all things, past, present and future — for, that is, what some may call “theories of everything.” According to this view, all psychological phenomena, including mind, life, and consciousness, are also reducible to physics and chemistry.
In his recent controversial but important book, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False (Oxford: OUP, 2012), Thomas Nagel argues against “reductive materialism” and reductionist interpretation of biological evolution. But Nagel is also an atheist, so he’ll have nothing to do with the theistic option and its contention that the intentionality of a purposive being is at work behind the present order of things. Nagel argues instead for a special kind of teleology that he calls “natural teleology” as the only valid explanation. The existence of teleological laws means that certain physical outcomes have a much higher probability than the laws of physics alone would allow because they are on a path toward certain results.
What interests me with Nagel’s proposal is that we find a historical precedent for it at the origins of philosophy and science in what is called the discovery or invention of nature or physis. In this paper, I’ll argue that when we turn to the history of philosophy before Aristotle, we see that this natural teleology, to borrow Nagel’s expression, led some thinkers to affirm reductive materialism, which in turn generated, as a reaction to it, theism as a philosophical position, a theism grounded in arguments for the existence of God/gods. In other words, there were no arguments for the existence of God before a case was made for atheism. In this battle of Titans, the concept of nature or physis was at the centre of the controversy, and the political and social ramifications were as acute then as they are now.
The aim of this paper is to introduce the philosophers and scientists participating in this congress on physis to the different parties in the original dispute and to their terms of reference. But my presentation here will also have something to say about the emergence of a new form of thinking, if not a new kind of Homo sapiens: the advent of Homo philosophicus, and the self-conscious reflexivity this being presupposes.
In his recent controversial but important book, Mind and Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False (Oxford: OUP, 2012), Thomas Nagel argues against “reductive materialism” and reductionist interpretation of biological evolution. But Nagel is also an atheist, so he’ll have nothing to do with the theistic option and its contention that the intentionality of a purposive being is at work behind the present order of things. Nagel argues instead for a special kind of teleology that he calls “natural teleology” as the only valid explanation. The existence of teleological laws means that certain physical outcomes have a much higher probability than the laws of physics alone would allow because they are on a path toward certain results.
What interests me with Nagel’s proposal is that we find a historical precedent for it at the origins of philosophy and science in what is called the discovery or invention of nature or physis. In this paper, I’ll argue that when we turn to the history of philosophy before Aristotle, we see that this natural teleology, to borrow Nagel’s expression, led some thinkers to affirm reductive materialism, which in turn generated, as a reaction to it, theism as a philosophical position, a theism grounded in arguments for the existence of God/gods. In other words, there were no arguments for the existence of God before a case was made for atheism. In this battle of Titans, the concept of nature or physis was at the centre of the controversy, and the political and social ramifications were as acute then as they are now.
The aim of this paper is to introduce the philosophers and scientists participating in this congress on physis to the different parties in the original dispute and to their terms of reference. But my presentation here will also have something to say about the emergence of a new form of thinking, if not a new kind of Homo sapiens: the advent of Homo philosophicus, and the self-conscious reflexivity this being presupposes.
Public Lecture: The University of Sydney, November 11, 2011
Gerard Naddaf, York University
Abstract
One of the main contentions I want make in this presentation is that self-conscious reflections on what it means for a poet, prophet, or seer to be “divinely” inspired were contingent on making a distinction between literal and figurative meanings (about the gods) and that this distinction only appears in ancient Greece with the advent of the alphabet and philosophy. I begin with an overview of the origin of writing systems to test the hypothesis that they necessarily change the way societies think about themselves. I show that while writing began in Mesopotamia around 3200 BCE and had a profound impact over the centuries on the civilizations there (and elsewhere too!), there is no evidence that it led to the kind of self-conscious critical analysis we associate with philosophy in ancient Greece. Indeed, these cultures make no clear distinction between the literal and the figurative as it concerns the relation between gods and men. But another point that interests me with the Mesopotamian tradition is that there is no reference to “divine” inspiration as we find it in ancient Greece or in the sacred texts of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. On the other hand, all of these cultures were profoundly influenced by the Mesopotamian creation myths and, of course, the written word.
Thus after situating Mesopotamia in the context of the origin of divine inspiration, I give an overview of the three religious traditions which consider their respective canonical “scriptures” as divinely inspired. I’m referring to the “sacred” books of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They are indeed religions of the Book!
I use these as a primer to the ancient Greek notion of divine inspiration as it is evidenced in the poems of Homer and Hesiod and the subsequent Greek reaction. Essentially, I examine the complex interface between belief in inspiration, the origins of philosophy, and the practice of allegory. I begin with Homer and Hesiod, turn to the origin of philosophy, move on to the first quarrel between philosophy and poetry, and then review the birth of the practice of allegorical interpretation. I give an overview of the role allegory played in the philosophic, religious, and even scientific traditions from this period to at least the Enlightenment. I also endeavour to show how believers practiced allegorical interpretation in relation to the Torah, the Christian Bible, and later the Qur’an. In doing so, I show, that although there has always been a struggle between the literal and allegorical interpretations of sacred texts, the practitioners of allegory commonly viewed both religious and philosophical texts as emanating from the same divine source — that is, as inspired by God. I end with some reflections on the interpretative clashes between competitive “inspired” texts.
Graham’s essay is as iconoclastic as it is insightful. No one has made a more compelling case for empirical science in Presocratic thought using a definition of science that would meet the most strict contemporary standards. The book is divided into seven chapters and ends with two appendices. It also includes a number of useful interpretive figures. In this review article, I first provide an overview of each of the chapters so readers will get a sense of the ingenuity behind the narration and just how novel a thesis it is. I then provide a critical assessment of some of the points I find problematic (the short shrift given to Anaximander, whom I see as the epitome of genius) or that deserve further clarification (the dating of astronomical events and the relation between Parmenides and Anaxagoras). I also draw attention to the importance of reflective self-consciousness as what distinguishes the Greeks from their predecessors and contemporaries.
Thus after situating Mesopotamia in the context of the origin of divine inspiration, I give an overview of the three religious traditions which consider their respective canonical “scriptures” as divinely inspired. I’m referring to the “sacred” books of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. They are indeed religions of the Book! I use these as a primer to the ancient Greek notion of divine inspiration as it is evidenced in the poems of Homer and Hesiod and the subsequent Greek reaction. Essentially, I examine the complex interface between belief in inspiration, the origins of philosophy, and the practice of allegory. I begin with Homer and Hesiod, turn to the origin of philosophy, move on to the first quarrel between philosophy and poetry, and then review the birth of the practice of allegorical interpretation. I give an overview of the role allegory played in the philosophic, religious, and even scientific traditions from this period to at least the Enlightenment. I also endeavour to show how believers practiced allegorical interpretation in relation to the Torah, the Christian Bible, and later the Qur’an. In doing so, I show, that although there has always been a struggle between the literal and allegorical interpretations of sacred texts, the practitioners of allegory commonly viewed both religious and philosophical texts as emanating from the same divine source — that is, as inspired by God. I end with some reflections on the interpretative clashes between competitive “inspired” texts.
Hip hop artist 50 Cent was on an international tour in December 2005, when his Toronto concert raised a storm of controversy. There had already been 48 gun-related deaths in Toronto in 2005, and, with his controversial lyrics and image, a public debate occurred about whether or not 50 Cent, a convicted criminal, should be permitted to perform in Canada.
50 Cent’s lyrics and public image incorporate themes of violence, misogyny, gang life, and urban crime. Like a number of other hip hop artists, 50 Cent is specifically branded to be controversial, and makes regular references to his own life experiences. If nothing else, this makes the lyrics authentic.
Into this mix, a Toronto-based entertainment company, specializing in promoting concerts in this genre on a national scale, was recruited by 50 Cent’s international concert promoter to provide marketing and promotion for the Toronto Concert. Because the tour was already in progress, it would go ahead whether or not the Toronto promoter became involved in the marketing. Thus, for the company, the decision was not about whether or
not the tour should happen, but whether or not they should be involved in the marketing and promotion of the Toronto show.
There was a panel discussion and debate on the issues surrounding the controversy at York University’s Schulich School of Business on 28 September 2007. The discussion and debate included the promoter. I was asked by a philosopher colleague, the late Wesley Cragg, who held an endowed chair in ethics at the business school, and who was one of the organizers, if I would give what might be Plato’s stand in light of his position on censorship in the Republic. The following is my intervention in the debate, and an illustration of what I see as the relevance of Plato today.
In 1999 Quebec classicist Louis-André Dorion published a series of French conversations with Brisson on the idea of myth. In Making Sense of Myth Gerard Naddaf offers an extended and updated English translation of these conversations, as well as a new set of discussions between himself and Brisson. Beginning with Brisson's childhood in the village of Saint-Esprit, Quebec, through his education as a gifted child in minor seminaries starting at age eleven, and continuing with his years in Paris, first as a graduate student and later at the Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS), Brisson tells the story of his escape from an all-encompassing myth - the one promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church. The philosopher situates Quebec society as inseparable from the history of the Catholic Church in Quebec, and argues that this correlation offers a perfect paradigm of myth and mythmaking. Naddaf’s introduction and afterword contextualize the conversations by discussing Brisson’s and Plato’s understanding of the origin and meaning of myth, elaborating on the role of myth in anthropogeny, in the creation of selfhood, and in multiculturalism.
Making Sense of Myth promises both a philosophy of myth and a philosophy of life, one inspired by Brisson’s lifelong engagement with the great Western philosopher Plato.
https://www.mqup.ca/making-sense-of-myth-products-9780228020714.php
Making Sense of Myth: Conversations with Luc Brisson
This is the penultimate version of the introduction to my book Making Sense of Myth: Conversations with Luc Brisson, which will be released in March 2024.
To most, myths are merely fantastic stories. But for Luc Brisson, one of the great living Plato scholars, myth is a key factor in what it means to be human – a condition of life for all. Essential and inescapable, myth offers a guide for living, forming the core of belonging and group identity.
In these free-flowing conversations, Brisson provides a lucid historical analysis of why the history of Quebec society is inseparable from the history of the Catholic Church in Quebec, and the correlation is a perfect paradigm of myth and mythmaking. Ultimately, Brisson wants to explain how his work on myth corresponds to his own biographical path, which, as he shows in these conversations, was itself rooted in myth – that of the Catholic Church in Quebec. But we soon see that his theory of myth and its practical application is relevant to each and every one of us, regardless of our particular background.
The conversations begin with Brisson’s genealogy and then narrate the story of his escape from an all-encompassing myth promulgated by the Roman Catholic Church of his youth. The myth or myths that made Brisson who he is are thus front and centre here. We learn of his recruitment by the Catholic Church as a gifted (but handicapped) child from a modest rural Quebec family at age eleven to begin training in a seminary in view of becoming a “janissary” of the church, the awakening of reflective consciousness he underwent, and his own noble lie to get an education that he would not have otherwise received. There is something for everyone here, but the book offers first and foremost a philosophy of myth that is inseparable from a philosophy of life.
The earlier conversations recorded here (with Louis-André Dorion) contain some of the most insightful ideas on the origin of bisexuality. There’s also ample coverage of Brisson's Orphic research, and a long synopsis on why the big bang is still a myth on a par with Plato’s Timaeus. Brisson's world travels, his decades living in Paris, and Quebec culture and politics also occupy a prominent place in these conversations, but always in the background is Brisson's attention to myth and, by extension, politics.
In our later conversations (part 4), there are insightful observations on why originality is a mirage; the constraints of the publish-or-perish phenomenon in academia; Brisson's experience working in teams; his and others' interpretations of Plato; the differences between Greek and Abrahamic religions; the place of myth in the modern world; and Brisson's theory for why reason will “always” be tied to myth, to mention but a handful of the themes touched on here.
It’s the final section of part 4 that brings together the whole. Myth, as Brisson understands it, comprises stories that give us our identity; they’re a way of unconsciously (until Plato, that is) controlling the individual within the community to which he or she belongs. As such, myths are creators of the self, of one’s identity. The notion of individuality is a kind of mirage; it’s as if there is no self independent of one’s larger group or community. For Brisson, myth is a phenomenon that few have given any real thought to, and yet it’s a key to understanding what it means to be human, and to the future destiny of humanity itself.
This book is for an educated and intellectually curious English-reading public (and not just scholars and philosophers), so I provide over three hundred notes to add necessary context. I also have an introduction (link to pdf of the penultimate version appended below) and an afterword. The former puts Plato and myth into context, and also gives readers a sense of what to expect in the conversations. In the latter, I describe the role of myth in anthropogeny (from the origin of language), in the evolution of the self and of consciousness (culminating in the creation of the Western mind), and in multiculturalism. I engage with myth in the current political and social climate, including current world events.
https://www.mqup.ca/making-sense-of-myth-products-9780228020714.php